NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

HEADQUARTERS
SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE

RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN SPACE AND EARTH SCIENCES – 2022

(ROSES-2022)

NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT (NRA)

SOLICITING BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: NNH22ZDA001N

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA) NUMBER: 43.001

OMB APPROVAL NUMBER 2700-0092 (EXPIRES 9/30/2022)

ISSUED: FEBRUARY 14, 2022

KEY DATES
FULL (STEP-2) PROPOSALS DUE
NO EARLIER THAN MAY 16, 2022

THROUGH NO LATER THAN MAY 12, 2023

i
 ROSES - 2022 SUMMARY OF SOLICITATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Funding Opportunity Description ............................................................................. 1
(a) Strategic Objectives of NASA and the Science Mission Directorate ....................... 1
(b) Research Programs of NASA's Science Mission Directorate .................................. 1
(c) Flight-Based Research Investigations ...................................................................... 3
(d) Significant Changes from Recent ROSES ............................................................... 3
(i) Changes from last year ..................................................................................................................... 3
(ii) Changes made in recent years ........................................................................................................ 6
(e) NASA-Provided High-End Computing (HEC) Resources ........................................ 6
(i) Request HEC Resources .................................................................................................................. 7
(ii) Upload Request for HEC Resources ............................................................................................... 7
(iii) Allocation of HEC Resources .......................................................................................................... 8
(f) Successor, Renewal, Resubmitted, Multiple and Duplicate Proposals .................... 8
(g) Order of Precedence ................................................................................................. 9
(h) Access to NASA Facilities/Systems ....................................................................... 10
(i) Citizen science ......................................................................................................... 11
(j) Science Activation .................................................................................................... 11
(k) Other Information about this Solicitation................................................................. 11
II. Award Information .................................................................................................. 12
(a) Funding and Award Policies ................................................................................... 12
(b) Award Period of Performance................................................................................. 13
(c) Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research ......................... 14
(d) Rephasing of Award Budgets, Family or Medical Leave, and No-Cost Time
Extensions .............................................................................................................. 15
III. Eligibility.................................................................................................................. 16
(a) Number of Proposals and Teaming Arrangements ................................................ 17
(b) Foreign Participation in General ............................................................................. 17
(c) Restrictions Involving China .................................................................................... 17
(d) Cost Sharing or Matching ....................................................................................... 18
IV. Proposal and Submission Information................................................................... 18
(a) Web Addresses for Due Dates and Amendments ................................................. 19

ii
 (b) Content and Form of the Proposal ......................................................................... 20
(i) Electronic Proposal Submission ..................................................................................................... 20
(ii) Proposal Format and Contents ...................................................................................................... 22
(iii) Table of Work Effort and Redaction of Salary, Fringe and Overhead Costs ................................ 24
(iv) Submission of Proposals via NSPIRES, the NASA Proposal Data System ................................. 26
(v) Submission of Proposals via Grants.gov ....................................................................................... 28
(vi) Notice of Intent to Propose ............................................................................................................ 30
(vii) The Two-Step Proposal Process.................................................................................................. 31
(vii) The Two-Phase Proposal Process ............................................................................................... 32
(c) Proposal Due Dates ................................................................................................ 33
(d) Funding Restrictions ............................................................................................... 33
(e) Other Submission Requirements ............................................................................ 35
(i) Demonstration of Access to Required Facility ................................................................................ 35
(ii) Inclusion Plan Pilot Study ............................................................................................................... 35
V. Proposal Review Information ................................................................................. 36
(a) Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................... 36
(b) Review and Selection Processes ........................................................................... 38
(c) Service as a Peer Reviewer .................................................................................... 39
(d) Processes for Appeals ............................................................................................ 39
(i) Reconsideration by SMD ................................................................................................................ 39
(ii) Ombudsman Program .................................................................................................................... 40
(iii) Protests.......................................................................................................................................... 40
(e) Anticipated Selection Announcement and Federal Award Dates .......................... 40
VI. Award Administration Information.......................................................................... 41
(a) Award Notices ......................................................................................................... 41
(b) Administrative and National Policy Requirements ................................................. 41
(c) Reporting ................................................................................................................. 41
(d) Acknowledgement of Support for Antarctic Access ............................................... 43
VII. Points of Contact .................................................................................................... 43
VIII. Other Information: Flight-Based Research Investigations .................................... 43
(a) Overview of Flight Platforms ................................................................................... 44
(b) General Guidelines for Flight Proposals................................................................. 45
(i) Additional Guidelines for Suborbital Proposals............................................................................... 45
(c) Points of Contact for Flight Platforms ..................................................................... 46

iii
 (i) NASA-provided Sounding Rocket Services .................................................................................... 46
(ii) NASA-provided Balloon Services................................................................................................... 47
(iii) STMD Flight Opportunities Program Commercial Suborbital Launch Vehicles............................ 48
(iv) Proposer-provided Commercial Suborbital Launch Vehicles ....................................................... 48
(v) Research Investigations Utilizing the International Space Station ................................................ 50
(vi) Use of Short Duration Orbital Platforms, including CubeSats ...................................................... 52
Table 1: Checklist for ROSES-2022 Proposals ............................................................... 56
TABLE 2. Program Elements (ordered by due date) ...........................................follow link
TABLE 3: Program Elements (ordered by Division/Topic) ...................................follow link
Note: Table 2 and Table 3 of this NRA are posted and updated as separate html
documents on the web and can be reached either by following the hypertext links above
embedded in the electronic version of this document, or at:
https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2022table2 and
https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2022table3, respectively, or by going to
https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2022 and following the links there.
Any amendments to the program elements will be indicated as bold and red in Table 2
and Table 3 of this NRA. Potential proposers may receive notification of amendments to
ROSES-2022 by signing up for the SMD NSPIRES mailing list and/or by signing up for
the ROSES-2022 Blog at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-
solicitations/roses-2022/.

iv
 ROSES - 2022
LIST OF PROGRAM ELEMENT APPENDICES (at of the time of release)

APPENDIX A. EARTH SCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM

A.1 Earth Science Research Program Overview A.1-1
A.2 Land Cover/Land Use Change A.2-1
A.3 Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry A.3-1
A.4 Terrestrial Ecology: Scoping Studies for Future Field Campaigns A.4-1
A.5 Carbon Cycle Science A.5-1
A.6 Carbon Monitoring System A.6-1
A.7 Biodiversity A.7-1
A.8 Physical Oceanography A.8-1
A.9 Ocean Salinity Science Team A.9-1
A.10 Sea Level Change Science Team A.10-1
A.11 Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) Science Team A.11-1
A.12 Ocean Surface Topography Science Team A.12-1
A.13 Ocean Vector Winds Science Team A.13-1
A.14 Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction A.14-1
A.15 Cryospheric Science A.15-1
A.16 Atmospheric Composition: Upper Atmospheric Composition A.16-1
Observations
A.17 Atmospheric Composition: Radiation Sciences Program A.17-1
A.18 Atmospheric Composition: Aura Science Team and Atmospheric A.18-1
Composition Modeling and Analysis Program
A.19 Tropospheric Composition: Airborne and Satellite Investigation of A.19-1
Asian Air Quality (ASIA-AQ)
A.20 Terrestrial Hydrology Program A.20-1
A.21 SMAP Science Team A.21-1
A.22 Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics A.22-1
A.23 Earth Surface and Interior A.23-1
A.24 Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science A.24-1
A.25 Airborne Instrument Technology Transition A.25-1

v
A.26 Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator A.26-1
A.27 Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research A.27-1
Environments
A.28 Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Science A.28-1
A.29 Earth Science Research from Operational Geostationary Satellite A.29-1
Systems
A.30 The Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem Mission Validation A.30-1
A.31 The Science of Terra, Aqua, and Suomi-NPP A.31-1
A.32 Studies with ICESat-2 A.32-1
A.33 ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team A.33-1
A.34 New (Early Career) Investigator Program in Earth Science A.34-1
A.35 Earth Science Applications: Water Resources A.35-1
A.36 Agriculture Applied Research Using Earth Observations A.36-1
A.37 SERVIR Applied Sciences Team A.37-1
A.38 Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience A.38-1
A.39 Earth Science Applications: Health and Air Quality A.39-1
A.40 Earth Science Applications: Ecological Forecasting A.40-1
A.41 Advancing Collaborative Connections for Earth System Science A.41-1
A.42 Citizen Science for Earth Systems Programs A.42-1
A.43 Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition New Vendor Onramp A.43-1
Evaluation
A.44 Commercial Smallsat Data Scientific Analysis A.44-1
A.45 Instrument Incubator Program A.45-1
A.46 Advanced Component Technology A.46-1
A.47 In-space Validation of Earth Science Technologies A.47-1
A.48 Sustainable Land Imaging – Technology A.48-1
A.49 Decadal Survey Incubation A.49-1
A.50 Advanced Information Systems Technology A.50-1
A.51 Applications-Oriented Augmentations for Research and Analysis A.51-1
A.52 Earth System Science for Building Coastal Resilience A.52-1
A.53 Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science and A.53-1
Disaster Mitigation

vi
APPENDIX B. HELIOPHYSICS RESEARCH PROGRAM
B.1 Heliophysics Research Program Overview B.1-1
B.2 Heliophysics Supporting Research B.2-1
B.3 Heliophysics Theory, Modeling and Simulations B.3-1
B.4 Heliophysics Guest Investigators-Open B.4-1
B.5 Living with a Star Science B.5-1
B.6 Living with a Star Strategic Capabilities B.6-1
B.7 Space Weather Science Applications Operations-to-Research B.7-1
B.8 Heliophysics Technology and Instrument Development for Science B.8-1
B.9 Heliophysics Low Cost Access to Space B.9-1
B.10 Heliophysics Flight Opportunities Studies B.10-1
B.11 Heliophysics Flight Opportunities for Research and Technology B.11-1
B.12 Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancements B.12-1
B.13 Heliophysics U.S. Participating Investigator B.13-1
B.14 Heliophysics Early Career Investigator Program B.14-1
B.15 Heliophysics Innovation in Technology and Science B.15-1
B.16 Heliophysics Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning-Ready Data B.16-1
B.17 Interdisciplinary Science for Eclipse B.17-1
B.18 Living With a Star Tools and Methods B.18-1
B.19 Heliophysics Living with a Star Infrastructure B.19-1
B.20 Heliophysics Tools and Methods B.20-1
B.21 Heliophysics Citizen Science Investigations B.21-1
B.22 Space Weather Centers of Excellence B.22-1

APPENDIX C. PLANETARY SCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM

C.1 Planetary Science Research Program Overview C.1-1
C.2 Emerging Worlds C.2-1
C.3 Solar System Workings C.3-1
C.4 Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration C.4-1
C.5 Exobiology C.5-1
C.6 Solar System Observations C.6-1

vii
 C.7 New Frontiers Data Analysis Program C.7-1
C.8 Lunar Data Analysis C.8-1
C.9 Mars Data Analysis C.9-1
C.10 Cassini Data Analysis Program C.10-1
C.11 Discovery Data Analysis C.11-1
Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar
C.12 C.12-1
System Observations
C.13 Maturation of Instruments for Solar System Exploration C.13-1
C.14 Planetary Science and Technology Through Analog Research C.14-1
C.15 Planetary Protection Research C.15-1
C.16 Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples C.16-1
C.17 Planetary Science Enabling Facilities C.17-1
C.18 Planetary Science Early Career Award C.18-1
C.19 Development and Advancement of Lunar Instrumentation C.19-1
C.20 Interdisciplinary Consortia for Astrobiology Research C.20-1
C.21 Yearly Opportunities for Research in Planetary Defense C.21-1
Concepts for Ocean worlds Life Detection Technology: Autonomy,
C.22 C.22-1
Communications, and Radiation-Hard Devices
C.23 Analog Activities to Support Artemis Lunar Operations C.23-1
C.24 Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) Participating Scientist Program C.24-1
C.25 Artemis III Geology Team C.25-1
C.26 Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis Program C.26-1
C.27 Preparatory Science Investigations for Europa C.27-1

APPENDIX D. ASTROPHYSICS RESEARCH PROGRAM

D.1 Astrophysics Research Program Overview D.1-1

D.2 Astrophysics Data Analysis D.2-1

D.3 Astrophysics Research and Analysis D.3-1

D.4 Astrophysics Theory D.4-1

D.5 Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory General Investigator – Cycle 19 D.5-1

D.6 Fermi General Investigator – Cycle 16 D.6-1

D.7 Strategic Astrophysics Technology D.7-1

viii
 Nancy Grace Roman Technology Fellowships for Early Career D.8-1
D.8
Researchers
D.9 NuSTAR General Observer – Cycle 9 D.9-1

D.10 TESS General Investigator – Cycle 6 D.10-1

D.11 NICER General Observer – Cycle 5 D.11-1

D.12 Theoretical and Computational Astrophysics Networks D.12-1

D.13 Astrophysics Pioneers D.13-1

Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Research and Support D.14-1
D.14
Participation Opportunities
D.15 LISA Preparatory Science D.15-1

D.16 Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor Science D.16-1

X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission Guest Scientist D.17-1
D.17
Program

APPENDIX E. BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES

E.1 Biological and Physical Sciences Division Research Overview E.1-1

E.2 Biophysics E.2-1

E.3 Complex Fluids E.3-1

E.4 Combustion Science E.4-1

E.5 Fluid Physics E.5-1

E.6 Fundamental Physics E.6-1

E.7 Materials Science E.7-1

E.8 Physical Sciences Informatics E.8-1

E.9 Space Biology: Plant Studies E.9-1

E.10 Space Biology: Animal Studies E.10-1

E.11 Space Biology: Beyond Low Earth Orbit E.11-1

APPENDIX F. CROSS-DIVISION RESEARCH

F.1 Cross Division Research Overview F.1-1
F.2 Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences F.2-1
F.3 Exoplanets Research F.3-1
F.4 Habitable Worlds F.4-1

ix
 Future Investigators in NASA Earth and Space Science and F.5-1
F.5
Technology
F.6 Science Activation Program Integration F.6-1
F.7 Support for Open Source Tools, Frameworks, and Libraries F.7-1
F.8 Supplemental Open Source Software Awards F.8-1
F.9 Citizen Science Seed Funding Program F.9-1

F.10 Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of the F.10-1

Moon
F.11 Stand Alone Location Agnostic Payloads and Research F.11-1
Investigations on the Surface of the Moon
F.12 Artemis Deployed Instruments F.12-1
F.13 Lunar Terrain Vehicle Instruments Program F.13-1
F.14 Transform to Open Science Training F.14-1
F.15 High Priority Open-Source Science F.15-1
F.16 Supplement for Scientific Software Platforms F.16-1

x
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN SPACE AND EARTH SCIENCES (ROSES) – 2022
SUMMARY OF SOLICITATION

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

This National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Research Announcement
(NRA), Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) – 2022, solicits
basic and applied research in support of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD).
Through this ROSES NRA, NASA encourages the participation of the space and Earth
science communities in SMD’s research and technology programs. These programs
form the foundation of both the basic and applied research that allows NASA’s space
and Earth science programs to be properly planned and carried through to the
successful interpretation of data and its application to the needs of end users.
Comments about this NRA are welcome and may be directed to the point of contact for
general questions and comments identified in Section VII.
ROSES is an omnibus NRA with many individual "program elements" that together
cover the wide range of basic and applied research and technology in space and Earth
sciences supported by SMD.
(a) Strategic Objectives of NASA and the Science Mission Directorate
NASA is chartered in the National Aeronautics and Space Act [51 U.S.C. § 20101 et
seq.] with, among other objectives, the expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and
of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. Working from this Congressional
authorization, U.S. National Space Policy directs NASA to advance fundamental
scientific knowledge of our Earth system, Solar System, and the Universe. This direction
is manifest in the 2018 NASA Strategic Plan, which includes Strategic Objective 1.1 to
understand the Sun, Earth, Solar System, and Universe.
Further insight into the strategic goals and objectives of SMD may be found in the
documents available at https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy/ including
Science 2019-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence and any more up to date versions
of the Science Plan or the NASA Strategic Plan that will be available there.
All program elements in this NRA are relevant to NASA’s strategic goals and objectives.
Each proposal to this NRA demonstrates the relevance of its proposed research to
NASA by being relevant to the particular program element to which it was submitted.
Further instructions concerning relevance and the other evaluation criteria are provided
in Section V(a).
(b) Research Programs of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate
NASA’s SMD achieves its strategic objectives in part by supporting a wide variety of
research and technology development through this ROSES NRA including:
• flight-based research and technology development projects in The Solar System;
• flight-based research and technology development projects in Earth orbit;
• suborbital-class research and technology development projects (on aircraft,
balloons, sounding rockets, various types of cube- and small satellites, and
commercial suborbital reusable launch vehicles); and

ROSES-22 SoS-1
• surface-based research and technology development activities that support flight
missions.
These surface-based investigations include, but are not limited to:
• theory, modeling, and analysis of SMD science data including data from SMD’s
international and/or interagency partners;
• development of concepts, techniques, and advanced technologies suitable for future
SMD space missions;
• development of methods for laboratory analysis of both extraterrestrial samples
returned by spacecraft and terrestrial samples that support or otherwise help verify
observations from missions;
• determination of atomic and composition parameters needed to analyze space data
and returned samples from the Earth or space;
• Earth surface observations and field campaigns that support SMD science missions;
• development of integrated Earth system models;
• development of systems for applying Earth science research data to societal needs;
and
• development of applied information systems applicable to SMD objectives and data.
SMD research and technology development activities are organized into five Science
Divisions corresponding to the first five appendices of ROSES:
• The Earth Science Research, Applied Sciences, Technology, and Data Systems
Programs sponsor integrative research to advance knowledge of and to explore
interactions among the major components of the Earth system – continents, oceans,
atmosphere, ice, and life – to differentiate natural from human-induced causes of
change, to understand and predict the consequences of change, and to apply that
knowledge to benefit the lives of people everywhere (Appendix A).
• The Heliophysics Research Program sponsors research to understand the Sun and
its interactions with the Earth and the Solar System, including space weather
(Appendix B).
• The Planetary Science Research Program sponsors research to explore the Solar
System to study its origins and evolution, including the origins of life within it
(Appendix C).
• The Astrophysics Research Program sponsors research to explore the Universe
beyond from the search for planets to the origin, evolution, structure, and destiny of
the Universe itself (Appendix D).
• The Biological and Physical Sciences Research Program sponsors research to
understand how biological and physical systems respond to and accommodate
spaceflight environments (Appendix E).
Appendices A, B, C, D, and E comprise program elements of these five Science
Divisions, respectively. Additionally, Appendix F comprises cross-division program
elements relevant to two or more of these science research programs.
Each of these appendices is prefaced with a Division Overview (A.1, B.1, C.1…) that
introduces the research program content of that division and lays out default rules that

ROSES-22 SoS-2
apply to all program elements within that appendix, if not superseded by individual
program elements (the calls for proposals) that make up each appendix.
Each one of these program elements has its own solicited topics, cadence, and due
dates, if solicited this year. HTML lists of those program elements and due dates are
given in Table 2 (ordered by due date) and Table 3 (ordered by Division/Topic). Each
name is hypertext linked to a web page and on the right, at the bottom of the list of
"Announcement Documents" a PDF version of that program element may be
downloaded.
This "Summary of Solicitation" you are reading now lays out rules that, by default, apply
to all program elements in ROSES unless superseded by a Division Overview or an
individual program element. See Section I(g) for more on the order of precedence.
Proposals in response to this NRA should be submitted to the most relevant science
program elements described in Appendices A, B, C, D, E, and F. Table 2 of this ROSES
NRA lists these program elements in the order of their calendar deadlines for the
submission of proposals, while Table 3 of this ROSES NRA lists program elements by
division (e.g., A. Earth Science, B. Heliophysics, etc.), in the order in which they appear
in the appendices of this NRA.
Unless a particular program element explicitly mentions contracts, proposers from non-
governmental organizations should assume that awards will be made as grants or
cooperative agreements, see Section I(a). The "SARA" website at https://sara.nasa.gov
has information for the research community, including ROSES FAQs, selection
statistics, a blog for changes to ROSES, pages to sign up as a reviewer, and a list of all
of the technical points of contact for all of the program elements, to whom technical
questions about the contents of a specific program element should be directed.
(c) Flight-Based Research Investigations
Since flight-based research investigations pose distinct challenges and have certain
requirements in common, Section VIII is devoted to flight investigations.
(d) Significant Changes from Recent ROSES
(i) Changes from last year
The following significant changes occurred since last year’s ROSES solicitation:
• Expansion of the Inclusion Plan pilot program: Last year, three programs required a
2-page "Inclusion Plan", see Section IV(e)ii and the Astrophysics Division White
Paper on the Inclusion Plan Pilot Program in ROSES-2021 at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/library-and-useful-links. This year the
following ROSES program elements will require an Inclusion Plan: A.23 ESI, A.28
IDS, B.22 Space Weather Centers of Excellence (SWxCs), D.3 APRA, D.7 SAT,
D.12 TCAN, D.13 Pioneers, D.15 LPS, D.16 Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor
Science (ADSPS), and F.10 PRISM. The assessment of this plan will not change
adjectival ratings or selection recommendations.
• Expansion of Dual-Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR): This year the following
ROSES program elements are using DAPR: A.18 AuraST/ACMAP, A.26 Earth
USPI, A.32 Studies with ICESat-2, B.4 HGIO, B.16 H-ARD, Planetary DAPs C.7-

ROSES-22 SoS-3
 C.11, D.2 ADAP, Astro Observing programs D.5, D.6, and D.9-D.11, D.16 ADSPS
D.17 XRISM, F.3 XRP and F.4 HW. See https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-
anonymous-peer-review and Section VI(b) for more information on DAPR,
• Programs to which proposals may be submitted at any time: ROSES now has many
program elements that accept proposals at any time without any preliminary
statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1 proposal. Though the NSPIRES page
for those programs display a "Proposals Due" date, that is simply the end date for
the current ROSES, after which proposals may be submitted to the program element
with the same name in the next ROSES. There are two categories of proposals of
this type: 1) No Due Date (NoDD) programs that will review proposals with a
cadence that will depend on the rate at which proposals are submitted and 2)
programs that will review quarterly. NoDD Programs include: A.24 RRNES, A.51
Applications-Oriented Augmentations for Research and Analysis, C.2 EW, C.3 SSW,
C.4 PDAR, C.5 Exobio, C.6 SSO, C.12 PICASSO, C.16 LARS. F.2 TWSC and F.8
SOSS. Quarterly review programs include B.12 HDEE, B.15 HITS, and B.20 HTM.
See the text of these program elements, the Research Overviews (A.1, B.1, C.1 etc.)
and https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD for more information.
• Section VIII Flight-Based Research Investigations has been revised for clarity and
updated to reflect that: (1) All proposers, not just those from Government
Laboratories, may now avail themselves of STMD’s Flight Opportunities Program
(FOP) contracts to suborbital flight service providers (see Section VIII(c)iii) and (2)
Most proposers using Short Duration Orbital Platforms, including CubeSats will use
NASA's Launch Service Program rather than the CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI)
program, see Section VIII(c)v for details.
• Section II(c) Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research has
been expanded and now links to SPD-41: Scientific Information Policy.
There have been many changes to the program elements within ROSES (see the lists
of Program Element Appendices above). A non-exhaustive list items of note includes:
• In Appendix A (Earth Science), new program elements include A.36 Agriculture
Applied Research Using Earth Observations, A.43 Commercial Smallsat Data
Acquisition New Vendor Onramp Evaluation, A.51 Applications-Oriented
Augmentations for Research and Analysis, A.52 Coastal Resilience and A.53
FireTech. There is a new Tropospheric Composition call this year in A.19 focused on
Airborne and Satellite Investigation of Asian Air Quality, and Interdisciplinary
Research in Earth Science returns in A.28 with new topics, including two (Ocean
Worlds and Earth-moon connections in a changing climate) that have interdivisional
aspects. Moreover, three program elements in Appendix A will evaluate proposals
using DAPR: A.18 AuraST/ACMAP, A.26 Earth USPI, A.32 Studies with ICESat-2,
see Section V(b) and two programs will participate in the Inclusion Plan pilot
program: A.23 ESI and A.28 IDS. Finally, some programs in Appendix A require that
proposers use the Earth Science standard templates for the Table of Work Effort
and Current and Pending Support at the "SARA" web page at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-science-division-appendix-
a-roses-proposals. Any programs that require the use of these templates will say so
clearly.

ROSES-22 SoS-4
• In Appendix B, there are five new program elements: B.16 Heliophysics AI/ML-
Ready Data (H-ARD), B.17 Interdisciplinary Science for Eclipse, B.20 Heliophysics
Tools and Methods (HTM), B.21 Heliophysics Citizen Science Investigations (HCSI),
and B.22 Space Weather Centers of Excellence (SWxCs). There is also a new
"Infrastructure" version of Heliophysics Living with a Star this year in program
element B.19.
B.12 Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancements (HDEE), B.15 Heliophysics
Innovation in Technology and Science (HITS), and B.20 HTM will accept proposals
at any time and evaluate quarterly. B.4, Heliophysics Guest Investigators-Open
(HGIO) and B.16 H-ARD will evaluate proposals using DAPR, see Section V(b), and
B.22 SWxCs will participate in the inclusion plan pilot study, see Section IV(e).
Finally, all proposals to Appendix B must use the standard Heliophysics template for
the Current and Pending Support and use of the DMP template is encouraged. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-appendix-b-
roses-proposals.
• In Appendix C (Planetary Science) new program elements include C.23 Analog
Activities to Support Artemis Lunar Operations ("Desert RATS"), C.25 Artemis
Geology, and C.27 Preparatory Science Investigations for Europa. C.4 is not
soliciting proposals for the development or validation of software tools, so its name
has been changed to Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration (PDAR) rather than
PDART. SSW Exclusions have been updated, to reflect that SSW now excludes
investigations involving archival data from Earth-based observations, as these
investigations are now covered by Appendix C.6, Solar System Observations (SSO).
C.2 EW, C.3 SSW, C.4 PDART, C.5 ExoBio, C.6 SSO, C.12 PICASSO and C.16
LARS continue to have no due date, they will accept proposals at any time. All of the
data analysis programs, i.e., C.7 NFDAP, C.8 LDAP, C.9 MDAP, C.10 CDAP, and
C.11 DDAP, will evaluate proposals using DAPR, see Section V(b) and DDAP does
not request budgets with the proposal, just cost category (small, medium, or large);
budgets will be requested later for selectable proposals. All proposals to Appendix C
are strongly encouraged to use the planetary science template for Table of
Personnel and Work Effort and proposals requiring a DMP are strongly encouraged
to use the PSD DMP template. Both templates may be downloaded from:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-planetary-science-division-appendix-
c-roses-proposals.
• In Appendix D (Astrophysics), new program elements include D.16 Astrophysics
Decadal Survey Precursor Science (ADSPS) and D.14 Nancy Grace Roman Space
Telescope Research and Support Opportunities and D.17 the X-Ray Imaging and
Spectroscopy Mission Guest Scientist, which were deferred from last year. Six
programs (D.3 APRA, D.7 SAT, D.12 TCAN, D.13 Pioneers, D.15 LPS and D.16
ADSPS) will require the 2-page "Inclusion Plan", see Section IV(e). Finally, all
Astrophysics GO/GI programs D.2 Astrophysics Data Analysis, and D.16 ADSPS will
evaluate proposals using DAPR, see Section V(b).
• In Appendix E (Biological and Physical Sciences), E.11 Space Biology: Beyond Low
Earth Orbit is new and the base Space Biology call has been split into two parts: E.9
Space Biology: Plant Studies and E.10 Space Biology: Animal Studies.

ROSES-22 SoS-5
• Appendix F the Cross-Division Appendix. Adds six new program elements: F.11
SALA PRISM, a second PRISM call for Stand-Alone Location-Agnostic instruments.
(The original PRISM call, for particular lunar locations, is program element F.10).
F.12 Artemis Deployed Instruments, F.13 Lunar Terrain Vehicle Instruments, F.14
Transform to Open Science Training, F.15 High Priority Open-Source Science and
F.16. Supplement for Scientific Software Platforms. Finally, F.10 PRISM will require
the 2-page "Inclusion Plan", see Section IV(e) and F.3, Exoplanets continues to
evaluate proposals using DAPR, see Section V(b).
Other small changes have been made throughout this document and to program
elements. It is the proposer's responsibility to read this entire document and the relevant
program element to understand the requirements. Changes that occur after this initial
release will be announced by amendments, corrections, or clarifications. Subscribe to
the NSPIRES mailing lists (by logging in and checking the appropriate boxes under
"Account Management" and "Email Subscriptions") and the ROSES-2022 Blog for such
updates.
(ii) Changes made in recent years
The following recent changes may be new to those who have not proposed to ROSES
in the last few years:
• The Division of Biological and Physical Sciences (BPS), previously part of the
Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD), is now part of
SMD and the BPS calls for proposals appear in Appendix E. The cross-division
programs that, in prior years, were in Appendix E are now in Appendix F
• Unless the program element states otherwise, the sufficiency of the data
management plan will be evaluated as part of Merit and will have a bearing on
whether or not the proposal is selected, see Section II(c).
• In Appendix C (Planetary Science) the ban on submission of concurrent "duplicate"
proposals has changed to a ban on submission of duplicate proposals more than
once per year. For more information see Section 3.2 of C.1, the Planetary Science
Research Program Overview.
• The requirements regarding letters of resource support from facilities have been
modified. Consistent with Section IV(e) Demonstration of Access to Required
Facility, for any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must state
which team member has access or provide a letter of resource support from the
facility or resource confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the
proposed period.
• The previously separated Budget Narrative and Details sections have been united in
a single section, making it consistent with the Guidebook for Proposers Responding
to a NASA Funding Announcement (hereinafter referred to as the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers or simply the Guidebook).
(e) NASA-Provided High-End Computing (HEC) Resources
SMD provides a specialized computational infrastructure to support its research
community, managed on its behalf by NASA's High-End Computing (HEC) program
(see the HEC website at https://www.hec.nasa.gov/). Two major computing facilities are

ROSES-22 SoS-6
offered: the NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS) at the Goddard Space Flight
Center (GSFC), and the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) facility at the Ames
Research Center (ARC).
The HEC program facilities maintain a range of computing systems with significant data
storage resources. These offerings are summarized at
https://www.hec.nasa.gov/about/overview.html. Augmentation and refreshment of these
central systems occur periodically, but the resources continue to be highly constrained.
The HEC program also provides assistance in code porting, performance tuning,
scientific data visualization, and data transfer.
Any need for computing time and other HEC program resources for the proposed
research responding to a ROSES solicitation must be explicitly justified by completing
an allocation request form for inclusion with your ROSES proposal (see sections i and ii
below). If your proposal is selected by NASA, it is eligible for an allocation of HEC
resources.
(i) How to Request HEC Resources
To inform science review panels and program managers of your computational needs
and, if your ROSES proposal is selected, establish eligibility to use HEC resources,
complete and submit a request in the HEC Request Management System (RMS) at
https://request.hec.nasa.gov. The form includes a written justification of how the
computational resources would support the investigation as well as a multi-year
resource-phasing plan, in annual increments, identifying the computing time and data
storage requirements covering the duration of the proposed award period. You should
use the "planning date for start of investigation" from the Summary of Key Information
for your program element as the start date for your computational project. Note that the
project title of the computing resource request must be the same as the title of the
proposal. Also, the Principal Investigator on the computing resource request must be
the same as the Principal Investigator on the science proposal.
Computing time must be described in the request using Standard Billing Units (SBUs), a
common unit of measurement employed by the HEC program for allocating and tracking
computing usage across its various architectures. The RMS system has a built-in
calculator to help convert processor (CPU) hours to SBUs. SBU Conversion Factors are
also available at https://www.hec.nasa.gov/user/policies/sbus.html, or proposers may
contact HEC support staff for further assistance calculating SBUs.
For further information or questions about NASA provided High End Computing
resources, please visit https://www.nas.nasa.gov/hecc/support/user_support.html for
NAS User Support, and https://www.nccs.nasa.gov for NCCS User Services Group.
(ii) Instructions to Upload Request for HEC Resources
Save a PDF copy of your request after submitting it using the button provided in RMS.
During your proposal submission in the NSPIRES system:
• Upload the PDF version of your computing time request as a separate file from
your proposal; select "Appendix" as the document type when uploading; for

ROSES-22 SoS-7
 DAPR programs do not combine with the "Expertise and Resources – Not
Anonymized" document; submit two separate files of type "Appendix".
• On the NSPIRES Cover Page
− Check the box indicating that a request for HEC resources is included in the
proposal; and
− Enter the HEC Request Number (specified on the PDF).
This requirement for a separate document supersedes the general ROSES rule that
proposals are made up of only two PDF files: the proposal and the Total Budget. For
proposals submitted via Grants.gov, the resource request should be attached as an
appendix to any appropriate location and the HEC request number should be included
on the PSD form provided as part of the application instructions package.
Science peer review panels, as a part of their evaluation of proposals, will be asked to
consider whether the computing time requested is an appropriate use of the highly
constrained resources dedicated to each program element under this NRA.
Selection of a ROSES proposal does not guarantee that a HEC request will be fully
allocated; HEC requests of selected proposals progress to the next step for evaluation
by the HEC program (see Section iii below). While some HEC time is guaranteed,
allocation may differ from the request given resource constraints.
(iii) Allocation of HEC Resources
If your proposal is selected for funding, your HEC request will be evaluated by the HEC
Allocation Authority. The HEC program will then issue letters identifying yearly
allocations of HEC resources for the duration of the project, which again, may differ
from your request due to limited availability of resources. However, PIs may submit
requests to increase or decrease allocations of HEC resources if there are unexpected
changes to computational needs. Requests for modifications must be submitted via the
RMS. Allocation in full cannot be guaranteed, but SMD will make every attempt to
satisfy the needs in the context of the overall set of requirements, resource constraints,
and science priorities.
To expedite initiation of new projects where PIs and/or users are foreign nationals
(whose accounts will require additional documentation and longer processing due to
tightened security requirements), the HEC program may consider providing a minimal
allocation to such projects which have been notified of pending funding soon after the PI
submits an allocation request in RMS.
All users of NASA HEC Resources must complete mandatory annual NASA Information
Technology Security training. Instructions will be provided when allocations are made.
(f) Successor, Renewal, Resubmitted, Multiple and Duplicate Proposals
PIs holding awards from any program element of any prior NRA are welcome to submit
"successor" or "renewal" proposals that seek to continue a previously funded line of
research if in scope of the current NRA. However, as described in the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers, such successor proposals will be considered with neither advantage nor
disadvantage along with new proposals that are submitted for that same program.

ROSES-22 SoS-8
Proposers are welcome to resubmit proposals (or tasks) that were not funded under a
prior program element or solicitation. Such submissions will be peer reviewed and
considered with neither advantage nor disadvantage along with new proposals.
However, some Appendices and/or program elements in ROSES limit submissions in
several ways:
The first limitation on submission bars "multiple" proposals to a given program element.
Some program elements in Appendix B (Heliophysics), e.g., B.2 H-SR, will not allow a
particular individual to be the PI of more than one proposal to those program elements
in the same cycle. In such cases, the first proposal identifying a particular PI will be
evaluated, but any subsequent proposal to the same program element that identifies the
same PI will not be evaluated or considered.
The second limitation bars concurrent submission of "duplicate" proposals. B.1, the
Heliophysics Research Program Overview and D.1 the Astrophysics Research Program
Overview both prohibit the submission of proposals that are "the same or essentially the
same" proposals already under consideration. In such cases, the first proposal
submitted will be evaluated but subsequent duplicate proposals will be returned without
review. See Section 1.5 of B.1 and Section 2 of D.1 for more information.
Third, the Planetary Science Division bars submission of duplicate proposals to multiple
programs within a single ROSES year, or, in the case of the no due date programs,
resubmission of proposals that were previously submitted within the past year. See
Section 3.2 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview.
(g) Order of Precedence
ROSES has layers of instructions, starting with the default Agency-level NASA
Guidebook for Proposers, the lowest in the hierarchy of instructions, followed by - in
increasing order of precedence - this Summary of Solicitation (SoS), the Division
Research Program Overviews (e.g., A.1, B.1…) and finally the individual program
elements, which are the highest priority (other than statute, of course). Thus, the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers sets out the most basic information (like the definitions of the
evaluation criteria), but it is superseded by this ROSES SoS, which presents default
information that applies to all program elements within it (like the OMB Approval
Number 2700-0092 and the CFDA Number 43.001 which is not repeated within each
program element). This ROSES SoS in turn sets out rules that apply by default to every
ROSES program element in it (like redaction of budgets), but any program element or
research program overview may supersede this SoS.
In the case of any conflict, the order of precedence is as follows:
1. Statutes, regulations and the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Manual (GCAM) take precedence followed by
2. Program elements
3. Division Research Program Overviews (e.g., A.1, B.1…)
4. The Summary of Solicitation of the ROSES NRA (i.e., this document)
5. Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Funding Announcement
In other words, unless it is superseded by statute, regulation, do what the program
element says. If the program element does not answer your question, do what the

ROSES-22 SoS-9
Division Research Program Overview says. If the Overview does not answer your
question, then do what this ROSES Summary of Solicitation says. If (and only if) none
of them tell you what to do, then refer to the default to the instructions in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers.
An example where individual program element may supersede the Guidebook is "letters
of affirmation" (sometimes called letters of endorsement). The Guidebook states that
letters that endorse the value or merit of a proposal will not be considered in the
evaluation of the proposal, but a few individual program elements in ROSES (e.g., F.2
TWSC) do allow such letters of affirmation.
Moreover, this Summary of Solicitation may include instructions that are more specific
or detailed than the Guidebook, and program elements often include instructions that
are more specific or detailed than this Summary of Solicitation or the Guidebook.
An example of a case where individual program element supersedes this Summary of
Solicitation is in how Relevance is evaluated. Section V(a) lays out a general approach
to evaluating relevance, but a few individual program elements (e.g., C.4 and C.5)
require explicit statements of relevance through mandatory text boxes on the NSPIRES
cover pages.
An example of a case where a research program overview differs from and supersedes
this Summary of Solicitation are the limits in B.1 and C.1 The Heliophysics and
Planetary Science Research Program Overviews vs. the resubmission of proposals to
No Due Date (NoDD) programs within a year of the prior submission. For more
information see Sections 1.4 of B.1 and Section 3.2 of C.1 The Planetary Science
Research Program Overview and https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD.
Questions about differences between ROSES and the Guidebook may be directed to
sara@nasa.gov. Questions about a difference between either of those and an individual
program element should be directed to the point of contact for the particular program
element and cc sara@nasa.gov.
Answers to these questions may appear in the ROSES NRA Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/. Any FAQs for
individual program elements will appear under "other documents" on the NSPIRES web
page for the program element. FAQs merely clarify, they do not contradict instructions in
the Guidebook, ROSES Summary of Solicitation or program elements.
(h) Access to NASA Facilities/Systems
To access NASA facilities and/or systems, award recipients must work with NASA to
ensure proper credentialing. For example, for access to High-End Computing (HEC)
Resources (see Section I(e) above) and for physical access to a NASA facility, one
would work with the badging office at that NASA Center. Authors of proposals that
would involve Foreign National access to NASA facilities/systems should refer to the
Foreign National Access Management (FNAM) Operations Manual.
Consistent with guidance from Executive Orders, the Centers for Disease Control and
the White House Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, NASA continues to adjust safety
protocols for those who access NASA facilities. As of the date of publication of this

ROSES-22 SoS-10
NRA, all non-NASA badged Grant and Cooperative Agreement award recipients, NASA
Postdoctoral fellows, interns, etc. who seek to enter a NASA Facility should expect to
complete a Certification of Vaccination status or provide proof of a negative COVID-19
test taken within 72 hours of a visit. Check with the host facility and see the latest
guidance at: https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocfo/gpc where one may find the Procedures
for Award Recipients Entering NASA Facilities During COVID-19 and COVID-19
Attestation Form Instructions. The latest guidance from NASA’s Office of Procurement
for contractors may be found at: https://www.nasa.gov/office/procurement/covid19-
contractor-information.
(i) Citizen science
Citizen science projects rely on volunteer participants in the scientific process.
Proposers to any ROSES program element are invited to incorporate citizen science
and crowdsourcing methodologies into their submissions, where such methodologies
will advance the scientific objectives of the proposed investigation. In addition, there are
ROSES elements that specifically emphasize citizen science. See, for example, the
Citizen Science Seed Funding Program element, F.9 of this ROSES solicitation. The
current SMD Policy on citizen science describes standards for evaluating proposed and
funded SMD citizen science projects. For more information see Section 3 H.R.6414 -
Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Act of 2016, which authorizes federal agencies to
utilize crowdsourcing and citizen science and
the https://science.nasa.gov/citizenscience webpage, that provides information about
existing SMD-funded projects, including how to sign up for the NASA-SOLVE email
listserv.
(j) Science Activation
NASA’s Science Mission Directorate recognizes the importance its content and experts
play in advancing human knowledge. SMD created a new program to activate learners
of all ages to become more scientifically literate and create a life-long love of learning.
By leveraging community-based organizations across the U.S. and online, new
opportunities can be provided. See the Science Activation program element, F.6 of this
ROSES solicitation. If you are a subject matter expert and would like to learn more -
visit https://science.nasa.gov/learners. To volunteer as a subject matter expert in the
Science Activation program, see https://science.nasa.gov/learners/sme-map.
(k) Other Information about this Solicitation
As stated in Section IV(b)(i), registration for either proposal submission system which
may be used to submit proposals to this solicitation, NSPIRES or https://grants.gov/,
must be performed by an organization's electronic business point-of-contact (EBPOC) in
the System for Award Management. The Data Universal Number (DUNS) number will
no longer be the official identifier for doing business with the U.S. Government after
April 4, 2022. After that date, entities doing business with the federal government must
use a Unique Entity Identifier created in SAM.gov.
This funding opportunity is not subject to Executive Order 12372, "Intergovernmental
Review of Federal Programs".

ROSES-22 SoS-11
In general, ROSES proposals are solicited by the Science Mission Directorate, as
indicated by CFDA number 43.001 on the front page. However, any given program
element may solicit jointly with another part of NASA (e.g., HEOMD with BPS calls in
Appendix E; HEOMD and STMD PRISM calls in Appendix F) or with another agency
(e.g., NOAA in Space Weather calls in Appendix B). Rather than listing all of the
participating CFDA numbers on the ROSES front page, which would be confusing, we
will simply identify organizations other than SMD in the individual program elements.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

(a) Funding and Award Policies
Prospective proposers to this NRA are advised that funds are not available for new
awards for most of its solicited program elements at the time of its release. The
Government's obligation to make awards is contingent upon the availability of sufficient
appropriated funds from which payment can be made and the receipt of proposals that
are determined acceptable for award under this NRA.
Awards from ROSES may support projects as they were proposed, or NASA may offer
to fund only selected parts, or all or part of what was proposed for a shorter duration
(e.g., a one-year pilot study), or a combination of duration and content reductions.
Proposals for pilot studies are welcome. Awards may depend on acceptable revised
budgets, statements of work, data management plans, or other elements of proposals
described in ROSES or in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Moreover, even after an
award letter has been sent or an award has begun, NASA has the authority to suspend
or terminate a grant in whole or in part in accordance with 2 CFR (Code of Federal
Regulations) 200.338–340.
The funds expected to be available for the first year of new awards for proposals
submitted in response to this NRA are given in the Summary Table of Key Information
at the end of each program element. An estimate of the number of awards that might be
made for each program element is also given in this Table, contingent on budget
allocation to that program element and availability of funding and presuming the
submission of sufficient highly rated proposals.
The typical period of performance for an award is three years, but some programs may
allow up to five years and others specify shorter periods.
ROSES-2022 will receive ~5000 proposals across all program elements and will
select/award ~1250 totaling ~$600 million over the lifetime of the awards. Individual
award sizes will vary based on scope from as little as ~$5000 to help support
workshops up to multi-year awards in the millions of dollars.
NASA's goal is to initiate new awards as rapidly as possible after the selection of
proposals is announced. However, the workload experienced by NASA, the availability
of appropriated funds, and any necessary post-selection negotiations with the proposing
organization(s) needed for the award(s) in question can all cause delays. Regarding this
last item, every proposer is especially encouraged to submit full and detailed
explanations of the requested budget to help expedite the processing of the award,
should their proposal be selected.

ROSES-22 SoS-12
The ROSES NRA is structured to allow NASA to make the full range of award types:
grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and intra- (within NASA) or inter- agency
transfers. 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 based on the guidance in Section 3 of
the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Manual (GCAM).
However, ROSES is a research solicitation so proposers must assume that awards to
non-governmental organizations will be grants or, when appropriate, cooperative
agreements. As indicated in the GCAM, cooperative agreements are awarded to non-
governmental participants on research proposals when there is substantial NASA
involvement, e.g., if the PI is at a NASA Center and a funded participant is at non-
governmental organization or when NASA provides or procures the launch service, see
Section VIII. Unless otherwise stated in a program element, (or the result of a prior
arrangement, e.g., JPL) ROSES proposals will not result in contracts since it would not
be appropriate for the public purpose of what is solicited. In the rare cases where
contracts are solicited, the program element will say so explicitly.
If a prospective proposer thinks that their work should be funded as a contract, but the
program element does not explicitly allow this, the proposer should communicate, well
in advance of proposal submission, with the point of contact for that program element
and cc sara@nasa.gov.
Grants and cooperative agreements will be subject to the policies and provisions
identified in the regulations at 2 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 200 and 2 CFR
1800, the NASA Grants and Cooperative Agreements Manual (GCAM), and contracts
will be subject to the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and the
NASA FAR Supplement.
Unless otherwise specified, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility activities, third-
party or independent project/program evaluation, and other types of project-level
assessments or performance measurement are not required. If a proposal includes
such costs, the budget narrative should include a description of institutional policies or
procedures that support the charging of these costs uniformly. Costs not fundamental to
the research and/or that exceed program requirements may be disallowed. See 2 CFR
200.414 Indirect (F&A) costs; §200.412 Classification of costs; and 2 CFR 200.403-405
Factors affecting allowability of costs, Reasonable costs, Allocable costs. The final
decision on such costs will reside with the NASA Grants Officer (GO) and not SMD.
Awards to proposers from governmental agencies other than NASA will be made as
interagency agreements (IAAs). Governmental proposers should specify whether they
think that their IAA should be an assisted acquisition (FAR definition) or not. If the other
government Agency is amenable, NASA will use the FS Forms 7600.
(b) Award Period of Performance
The maximum period of performance (duration) for new awards from proposals
submitted in response to this NRA is given in the Summary of Key Information at the
end of each program element. The period of performance ranges from one year to five
years for extensive, comprehensive studies, with three years being typical. Award

ROSES-22 SoS-13
durations may be longer in special cases, such as teams of long-duration space
missions. Whatever the proposed period of performance it must be justified in the
proposal. The appropriateness of the proposed period of performance will be evaluated
by peer review. SMD may offer to support an award of shorter duration than was
proposed. Award start and end dates will vary by program element, but award start
dates are rarely less than 6 months from the proposal due date.
(c) Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research
In keeping with the NASA Plan for Increasing Access to Results of Federally Funded
Research the SMD Strategy for Data Management and Computing for Ground Breaking
Science 2019-2024, and SPD-41: Scientific Information Policy, most proposers to
ROSES must provide a Data Management Plan (DMP) or an explanation of why one is
not necessary given the nature of the work proposed. The DMP conveys how
publications, data, and software will be managed to ensure their long-term accessibility
and to enable reproducibility of the research.
If a DMP is required, the sufficiency of the data management plan will be evaluated as
part of the proposal’s intrinsic merit and will have a bearing on whether or not the
proposal is selected. Unless otherwise stated, the data management plan will be placed
in a 2-page section in the proposal PDF immediately following the references and
citations for the Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) portion of the proposal and
does not count against the page limit for the S/T/M Section. For questions and answers
on DMPs and ROSES see the https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/dmp-faq-
roses/.
Program elements that do not conform to the default approach for DMPs described
above will say so explicitly and they are: First, for some proposals the nature of the work
is inexorably linked to the handling of data, so the DMP is part of the page-limited S/T/M
section of the proposal. Examples include (but are not necessarily limited to) proposals
to: B.7 Space Weather Science Applications, B.12 Heliophysics Data Environment
Emphasis, C.4 Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration, F.3 Exoplanets Research,
and certain proposals to D.2 Astrophysics Data Analysis. Second, instrument
development and technology development programs are generally exempted from
providing a DMP at all under the presumption that no "data" will be generated. However,
even if a DMP is not required as a part of a proposal, if an award is made the standard
requirements and expectations regarding release of supporting data and code still
apply, see below.
Whether in the separate 2-page section or in the page-limited S/T/M portion of the
proposal, proposals should allocate suitable time and resources for this activity. For
information about data rights and other aspects of intellectual property such as invention
rights resulting from awards, see Appendix J of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
As always with ROSES, this Summary of Solicitation sets the defaults, but any division
may modify or supersede these in the Division Research Program Overviews (e.g., A.1,
B.1…) or in a specific program element. For example, some elements, like A.13 Ocean
Vector Wind Science Team and A.52 Coastal Resilience, require a separate Software
Development Plan and may require that code must be made publicly available under a
certain kind of license, may specify preferred archives, or may otherwise require more

ROSES-22 SoS-14
than is outlined in this Summary of Solicitation. Some program elements provide
templates for the data management plan. The template for the program elements in
Appendix A (Earth Science) may be found here, the template for the program elements
in Appendix B (Heliophysics) may be found here and the template for the program
elements in Appendix C (Planetary Science) may be found here. Please read the
program elements carefully.
For the convenience of proposers, we address data, software, and publications
separately below.
Data: In this solicitation, "data" means information needed to validate the scientific
conclusions of peer-reviewed publications resulting from an award, including data
underlying figures, maps, and tables, must be made available at the time of publication,
publicly and electronically in a place where it can be found and it is likely to persist, e.g.,
in the supplemental material of the article, a community-endorsed repository, a NASA
repository such as http://data.nasa.gov/, or a repository supported by a division, or a
combination of different resources as would be most appropriate to the data being
shared.
Software: Code developed should be made publicly available when it is practical and
feasible to do so, and when there is scientific utility in doing so. Please also note that for
instrument/technology development programs there is a requirement that applies only to
them: final reports (only, not annual progress reports) must be made public via NASA
TechPort.
Publications: The DMP should clearly indicate how products (e.g., manuscripts
publications, presentations etc.) will be shared. Awards deriving from ROSES include
terms and conditions requiring that accepted manuscript versions of peer-reviewed
publications (hereinafter "manuscripts") that result must be uploaded via NASA
PubSpace. The Federal Register notice on this subject specifies that manuscripts must
be deposited within one year of completion of the (manuscript) peer review process.
Please note that the NASA research access FAQ at https://sti.nasa.gov/faq/ says that
not doing so "may delay or prevent awarding of funds". The cost for publishing open
access may be included in the proposal budget. This applies only to peer-reviewed
manuscripts. Patents or publications that contain material governed by personal privacy,
export control, proprietary restrictions, or national security law or regulations are not
covered by this requirement. For more details on public access to scientific publications
and digital scientific data resulting from NASA-funded research, please see:
https://sti.nasa.gov/. NASA encourages publications to be published Open Access, and
any cost to do so may be included in the budget. NASA also encourages publications to
be posted on community appropriate preprint servers.
(d) Rephasing of Award Budgets, Family or Medical Leave, and No-Cost Time
Extensions
Occasionally the schedule for a research project changes, and this will change the
phasing of the funding requirement. "Rephasing" funding may be initiated either at the
request of the PI or NASA.

ROSES-22 SoS-15
In keeping with NASA’s policy in the Grants and Cooperative Agreement Manual
(GCAM), SMD will accommodate all reasonable requests from the PI or Authorized
Organization Representative (AOR) to rephase ROSES awards to accommodate a PI’s
need to care for family and health (e.g., for family or medical leave). In the case of
contracts, rephasing will be performed as long as it does not compromise previously
agreed upon project goals, timelines, or deliverables associated with a NASA
requirement described in the contract.
NASA policy allows grantee-initiated, first time no-cost extensions (NCEs) of up to 12
months. Grantees should use the form at https://www.nssc.nasa.gov/nocostextension to
request NCEs. PIs at Government labs should contact their program officer directly.
SMD program officers may engage in active grant management to diminish carrying
forward uncosted funds from one fiscal year to the next fiscal year (carryover). Program
officers may invite PIs to rephase their funding requirement where funds for a year or
more are being carried forward. In this way, the awarding of future year funds can more
closely align with the timing of project activities. The total funds disbursed over the
period of performance will not change, only the fiscal year (FY) in which they arrive.
SMD policy is that rephasing should not cause work on continuing awards to be
deferred because of a delay in receipt of funds. PIs should communicate clearly to the
program manager if a rephasing would interfere with the planned schedule for the grant.
If an award is rephased, NASA will make every reasonable effort to provide the next
fiscal year funding in a timely manner. Honoring commitments and ensuring the
continuation of existing projects is a high priority of SMD.

III. ELIGIBILITY
Organizations of every type, domestic and foreign, Government and private, for-profit
and not-for-profit, may submit proposals without restriction on teaming arrangements,
other than with China, see subsection (c), below.
NASA recognizes and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive scientific,
engineering, and technology communities and fully expects the reflection of such values
in the composition of all panels and teams, including peer review panels, proposal
teams, science definition teams, and mission and instrument teams. Please see Section
IV(e) on the Inclusion Plan Pilot Study.
To broaden the base of investigators involved in SMD-supported science and
engineering, SMD especially seeks proposals from investigators who and institutions
that have rarely if ever received funding from SMD. A resource that some proposers
may find useful is the NASA MSI Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/. Per
Federal statutes and NASA policy, no eligible applicant shall experience exclusion from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving financial assistance from NASA on the grounds of their
race, color, creed, age, sex, national origin, or disability. NASA welcomes proposals
from all qualified and eligible sources, and strongly encourages proposals from
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Minority Serving Institutions
(MSIs), small-disadvantaged businesses (SDBs), veteran-owned small businesses,
service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB), HUBZone small

ROSES-22 SoS-16
businesses, and women-owned small businesses (WOSBs), as eligibility requirements
allow.
(a) Number of Proposals and Teaming Arrangements
There is no general restriction on the number of proposals that an organization may
submit to this solicitation, nor on the teaming arrangements, including teaming with
NASA Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. However, some appendices or
program elements limit the number of proposals that may be submitted on behalf of an
individual PI to a program element or bar duplicate proposals, see Section I(f).
(b) Foreign Participation in General
Participation in ROSES-funded research by non-U.S. organizations is welcome on a "no
exchange of funds" basis. That is, unless otherwise stated, NASA will fund research at
selected U.S. organizations and the sponsoring foreign agency or institution must do the
same for theirs. NASA does not fund research efforts at foreign organizations, including
travel, whether proposed directly by a foreign organization, or as part of proposals
submitted by U.S. organizations. However, the direct purchase of goods, supplies
and/or services, which do not constitute research, from non-U.S. sources by U.S. award
recipients is permitted.
If a proposal with a non-U.S. partner is selected, NASA will determine whether such
participation should be covered by and implemented through an international agreement
between NASA and the sponsoring foreign agency or funding/sponsoring institution
under which the parties agree to each bear the cost of discharging their respective
responsibilities.
Foreign Co-Is on proposals from U.S. organizations must include a letter of certification
from their government agency or funding/sponsoring institution indicating that, should
NASA select the proposal, the support needed by the foreign Co-I for their portion of the
research will be provided.
Further information on foreign participation is provided in ROSES FAQ #14 on this topic
and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
(c) Restrictions Involving China
In accordance with restrictions in Appropriation Acts, NASA is prohibited from funding
any work that involves the 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.
Proposals involving bilateral participation, collaboration, or coordination in any way with
China or any Chinese-owned company, whether funded or performed under a no
exchange of funds arrangement, may be ineligible for award.
For more information, please see the ROSES PRC FAQ on the SARA web page at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/prc-faq-roses/
As stated in 2 CFR 1800 Appendix A, NASA requires Certifications, Assurances, and
Representations, including Certifications and Assurances to implement restrictions in
Appropriation Acts, that are applicable to all awards. By submission of a proposal,

ROSES-22 SoS-17
proposers are certifying that the proposing organization has read and is in compliance
with all the Certifications, Assurances, and Representations, including that they are not
China or a Chinese-owned company, and that they will not participate, collaborate, or
coordinate bilaterally with China or any Chinese-owned company, at the prime recipient
level or at any subrecipient level, whether the bilateral involvement is funded or
performed under a no exchange of funds arrangement.
(d) Cost Sharing or Matching
Unless otherwise specified, cost sharing is not required for an institution of higher
education or other not-for-profit organization to receive a grant or cooperative
agreement, although NASA may accept cost sharing if it is voluntarily offered (see 2
CFR 200.306, 2 CFR 1800.306, Grants and Cooperative Agreement Manual (GCAM)
5.6 Funding).
Each proposal must include a Table of Personnel and Work Effort with names and
planned work of all personnel necessary to perform the proposed effort, regardless of
whether that work effort requires funding or not. As this is outside of the budget section,
any work listed in this table that is not to be funded by NASA is not considered cost
sharing as defined in 2 CFR § 200.29. Level of effort estimates for unfunded team
members are not intended to represent voluntary committed cost sharing. Collaborators
should be listed on the table, but their level of effort may be simply given as "de
minimis." See Section IV(b)iii for an example.

IV. PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

All information needed to apply to this solicitation is contained in this ROSES NRA and
anything not mentioned here is subject to the default Agency rules in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. 48 CFR 1852.235-72 "Instructions for responding to NASA
Research Announcements" appears by reference in the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers. Proposers are responsible for understanding and complying with its
procedures for the successful, timely preparation and submission of their proposals.
Proposals that do not conform to its standards may be declared noncompliant and
returned without review.
The introductory material, as well as the appendices, of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers provides additional information about the entire NRA process, including
NASA policies for the solicitation of proposals, guidelines for writing complete and
effective proposals, and NASA's general policies and procedures for the review and
selection of proposals and for issuing and managing the awards to the institutions that
submitted selected proposals.
Unless otherwise stated in the program element, each proposal must be a single
separate, stand-alone, complete PDF document for evaluation purposes, other than the
Total Budget file, the (optional) HEC request appendix, and, if relevant, documentation
associated with the Dual-Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR) process.
Potential proposers may find useful the additional miscellaneous information about a
variety of the NASA proposal and award processes, policies, and procedures in the
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/.

ROSES-22 SoS-18
NASA collects demographic data (name, gender, race, ethnicity, and disability status)
from proposers via NSPIRES for the purpose of analyzing demographic differences
associated with its award processes. Submission of this information is strictly voluntary,
is not communicated to program officers, and is neither any part of the evaluation or
selection process nor a precondition of award.
(a) Web Addresses for Due Dates and Amendments
This ROSES-2022 omnibus NRA will be available as PDF files, at
https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2022 and is synopsized on Grants.gov
(https://www.grants.gov). The names of the program elements that make up ROSES
are given in Table 2 (ordered by full/Step-2 proposal due date) and Table 3 (ordered by
Division/Topic). Each name is hypertext linked to a web page and on the right, at the
bottom of the list of "Announcement Documents" a PDF version of that program
element may be downloaded. Individual program elements in ROSES that are expected
to result in grants (and/or cooperative agreements) are synopsized on Grants.gov at the
time of their release and each program element provides the funding opportunity
number for downloading an application package from Grants.gov in the Summary of
Key Information, which is generally at the end of each program element.
SMD maintains an electronic notification system to alert all registered users of the
NASA proposal database system at https://nspires.nasaprs.com of its research program
announcements. To add or change a subscription to the electronic notification system
(e.g., to learn of additional new program elements or amendments to ROSES), users
should login, select "Account Management" then "email Subscriptions." Owing to the
increasingly multidisciplinary nature of SMD programs, this email service will notify all
subscribers to the Science Mission Directorate General Subscription List of (i) all NASA
SMD research program solicitations regardless of their type or science objectives; (ii)
amendments to all SMD solicitations that have been released for which the proposal
due dates have not passed; and (iii) special information that SMD wishes to
communicate to those interested in proposing to its sponsored research programs.
Altogether, a subscriber may receive 50-100 notifications per year. SMD maintains this
subscription list in confidence and does not attempt to discern the identity of its
subscribers. Division-specific subscription lists are used to communicate non-solicitation
information of interest to that Division. Automated spam filtering software may identify
SMD’s electronic notifications as spam or junk mail. Subscribers are advised to ensure
that email received from “…@listsrv2.nasaprs.com”, "NSPIRES-help@nasaprs.com", or
nspires@nasaprs.com are not identified by any automated email filtering system as
unwanted email. Note that the latter address is an outgoing (from NSPIRES) address
only; all enquiries should be directed to the help address.
In addition, potential proposers to ROSES are encouraged to subscribe to:
• The ROSES-2022 Blog for amendments, clarifications, and corrections at
http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/ROSES-2022/ and
• The ROSES-2022 due date Google calendars. Instructions are at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/library-and-useful-links.
Questions regarding a program element should be directed to the program officer
identified in the Summary Table of Key Information at the end of each program element

ROSES-22 SoS-19
or on the list of program officers on the SARA web page. Any clarifications or questions
and answers that are published will be posted on the relevant program element’s index
page in NSPIRES.
(b) Content and Form of the Proposal
The technical content required of a ROSES proposal is determined by the individual
program elements listed in and hypertext linked from Table 2 (ordered by due date) and
Table 3 (ordered by Division/Topic). The constituent parts of the proposals are given in
Table 1 at the end of this ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
For more information about the types of research supported by the individual program
elements solicited in previous editions of this NRA and other predecessor NRAs, the
titles and abstracts of all investigations selected through previous solicitations are
available by program element at https://nspires.nasaprs.com: click "CLOSED/PAST",
search by keyword for the particular ROSES program element of interest and
information on the selected proposals will be in a downloadable PDF file. For example,
the selections from proposals submitted to Planetary Protection Research in ROSES-
2021 may be found on the NSPIRES page for that program element, by downloading
the PDF linked from the words "Planetary Protection Research 2021 Selections" under
the heading "Selections".
(i) Electronic Proposal Submission
All proposals in response to this ROSES NRA must be submitted electronically and on
time by one of the officials at the PI's organization who is authorized to make such a
submission. No hard copy submission of the proposal is permitted. Electronic
submission by a person authorized to do for the organization (see below) serves as the
required "signature" of the proposing organization. Difficulty in registering with or using
a proposal submission system is not, in and of itself, a sufficient reason for NASA to
consider a proposal that is submitted after the proposal due date (See the SMD Policy
on Late Proposals). After submission via NSPIRES, proposers can verify proposal
delivery by logging into NSPIRES and selecting "proposals" and "Submitted
Proposals/NOIs". Additionally, the proposal PI and the submitting organization’s AOR(s)
will receive an email from NSPIRES confirming that the submission has been
completed.
Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this ROSES NRA via either of
two different electronic proposal submission systems: the NASA Solicitation and
Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) at
https://nspires.nasaprs.com; see Section IV(b)(iv) below, or Grants.gov at
https://www.grants.gov; see Section IV(b)(v) below. The only exceptions are occasional
joint calls with other Agencies that use the other Agency submission system and the
Astrophysics General Investigator (GI) and General Observer (GO) programs. See
Section IV(b)viii on the two-phase process and those program elements for details.
Note the following requirements for submission of an electronic proposal, regardless of
the intent to submit via NSPIRES or Grants.gov:
• Every organization that intends to submit a proposal to NASA in response to this
NRA, including educational institutions, industry, not-for-profit institutions, the Jet

ROSES-22 SoS-20
 Propulsion Laboratory, NASA Centers, and other U.S. Government agencies, must
be registered in NSPIRES. This applies equally for proposals submitted via
Grants.gov. Every organization that intends to submit a proposal through Grants.gov
must also be registered in Grants.gov, as well as in NSPIRES. Registration for either
proposal data system must be performed by an organization's electronic business
point-of-contact (EBPOC) in the System for Award Management
(https://www.sam.gov/SAM/). Applicants are required to maintain an active SAM
registration, with current information loaded, at all times while competing for a
federal award, and, if applicable, during the period of performance of the award.
• Any organization requesting NASA funds through the proposed investigation must
be listed on the Proposal Cover Page. NASA will not fund organizations that do not
appear on the Proposal Cover Page.
• Unless specifically allowed by an individual program element, CoPIs are not
permitted. The use of other team member roles in NSPIRES (described in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers) including Co-I/Science PI, Co-I/Institutional PI, and Co-
I/Co-PI (only from a non-U.S. organization under specific circumstances), are
permitted. Any role with "PI" in the title is subject to the rules, requirements, page
limits, etc. laid out for the PI. For more information on rules and expectations
regarding the Co-I/Science PI, please see SARA FAQ #9.
• Each individual team member (e.g., PI, Co-Investigators, and Collaborators),
including all personnel named on the proposal's electronic cover page, must be
registered in NSPIRES. NSPIRES registration applies equally for proposals
submitted via Grants.gov since these databased names and affiliations are used for
conflict of interest checking. Additionally, each team member must confirm their
participation on that proposal (indicating team member role) and must specify an
organizational affiliation. For proposals submitted via NSPIRES, this confirmation is
via NSPIRES (see Section IV(b)(iv), below). For proposals submitted via Grants.gov,
this confirmation is via "Letters of Commitment" included within the proposal. The
organizational affiliation specified on the cover page must be the organization
through which the team member would work and receive funding while participating
in the proposed investigation. If the individual has multiple affiliations, then this
organization may be different from the individual’s primary employer or preferred
mailing address. Team members are asked to ensure that their contact information
in NSPIRES is up to date. Changes can be made using the "Account Management"
link on the "NSPIRES Options" page.
Typically, an electronic proposal consists of electronic forms (i.e., the NSPIRES cover
pages) and two or more attachments. The electronic forms contain data that will appear
on a proposal’s cover pages and will be stored with the proposal in the NSPIRES
database. A proposal submitted in response to this NRA must have two attachments:
the main proposal PDF and the Total Budget PDF. The main proposal PDF contains all
ten sections of the proposal listed in Table 1, including the Table of Contents, main
Science/Technical/Management section, References, Data Management Plan (See
Section IIc for exceptions) Biographical sketches/CVs, Table of Personnel and Work
Effort, Current and Pending Support, any Statements of Commitment or Letters, Budget
(excluding any salary, fringe or overhead), and Facilities and Equipment. The separately

ROSES-22 SoS-21
uploaded Total Budget PDF contains the full and complete budget, including salary,
fringe and overhead (see Section IV(b)iii). If there is an accompanying HEC request
(see Section I(d) above) then a HEC Appendix is uploaded as a separate, third PDF.
The most common exception to the general rule above is for the case of proposals
submitted to those programs that use a dual-anonymous peer review (DAPR) process
in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members of the review
panel, but the reviewers are not told the identity of the proposers until after the review of
the merit, relevance, and cost reasonableness of the proposal. In ROSES this year the
programs evaluating proposals using DAPR include:
• A.18 Aura Science Team and Atmospheric Composition Modeling and Analysis
Program,
• A.26 Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator,
• A.32 Studies with ICESat-2,
• B.4 Heliophysics Guest Investigators-Open,
• B.16 Heliophysics Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning-Ready Data Program,
• Planetary Science data analysis programs (DAPs C.7-C.11),
• D.2 Astrophysics Data Analysis,
• Astrophysics General Investigator/Observer/Scientist Calls (D.5, D.6, D.9-D.11),
• D.16 Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor Science,
• D.17 XRISM Guest Scientist Program,
• Exoplanets Research (F.3), and
• F.4 Habitable Worlds.
Proposers to these programs must provide an anonymized version of the proposal for
peer review, and a separate non-anonymized document that contains elements of the
proposal that would reveal the identities and affiliations of participating researchers,
such as expertise, facilities, and resources. Any program element that is using DAPR
(and thus has these special requirements) will 1) include a notification indicating that
this is the case, 2) contain a special section with detailed instructions about how to
prepare proposals, 3) link to a special web FAQ on this subject, and 4) the NSPIRES
page of any program using DAPR will host "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
under "Other documents". As always, a separate (not anonymized) Total Budget file will
also be required. DAPR processes are described in Section V(b).
Submission of proposals via either NSPIRES or Grants.gov is a two-part process. When
the PI has completed entry of the data requested in the required electronic forms and
attachment of the allowed PDF attachments, including the Science/Technical/
Management section, an official at the PI's organization who is authorized to make such
a submission, referred to as the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR), must
submit the electronic proposal (forms plus attachments). Coordination between the PI
and his/her AOR on the final editing and submission of the proposal materials is
facilitated through their respective accounts in NSPIRES and/or Grants.gov.
(ii) Proposal Format and Contents
All proposals submitted in response to this NRA must include responses to any
questions and/or electronic forms required by NSPIRES or Grants.gov. For example,

ROSES-22 SoS-22
submission requires online input of a 4000-character Proposal Summary (the award
purpose, goals, and outcomes and, if applicable, indicators and beneficiaries.),
Business Data (such as dates and fiscal years), Other Project Information (such as
Environmental Impact), Budget information, Program Specific Data (such as
government participation) and online confirmation of team members.
The Science/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section and other required sections of the
proposal must be submitted as a single, searchable, unlocked PDF file that is attached
to the electronic submission using one of the proposal submission systems. Proposers
must comply with all format requirements specified in this NRA (see below and Table 1
of this Summary of Solicitation) and in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. The S/T/M
section is page limited and only the parts specified in Table 1 are permitted. Proposals
that exceed page limits, violate formatting rules, or contain extra sections or appendices
that are not specifically requested or allowed by this NRA or a program element may be
declared noncompliant and returned without review or rejected after review, no matter
what their rating. The NASA Guidebook for Proposers provides default Agency-wide
discussions of the content and organization of proposals, as well as the default page
limits of a proposal’s constituent parts. Those apply by default unless superseded by
instructions detailed in ROSES, see Section I(g).
Note that some of the program element descriptions in Appendices A through F of this
NRA may specify different page limits for the Science/Technical/Management section of
the proposal; if so, these page limits will be prominently given in the Summary of Key
Information subsection that concludes each program element description. In the event
the information in this NRA is different from or contradictory to the information in the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers, ROSES takes precedence, see Section I(g).
Unless otherwise stated in the appendix or program element, proposals submitted in
response to ROSES must follow these rules for formatting: The body text and captions
may not, on average across a solid block of text, exceed 15 characters per horizontal
inch, including spaces, though text within figures and tables may be smaller if still
judged by the reviewers to be readable. Easily read sans serif fonts (e.g., Arial,
Helvetica, Verdana) are encouraged but not required. Proposals may not have more
than 5.5 lines per vertical inch of text, must have at least one-inch margins, be set for
US letter size (8.5x11) paper, and expository text necessary for the proposal may not be
located solely in figures, tables, or their captions. Moving images are not allowed unless
explicitly permitted by the program element. Pages must be numbered.
Important note on creating PDF files for upload: It is essential that all PDF files
generated and submitted meet NASA requirements. This will ensure that the submitted
files can be ingested by NSPIRES regardless of whether the proposal is submitted via
NSPIRES or Grants.gov. At a minimum, it is the responsibility of the proposer to:
(1) ensure that all PDF files are unlocked and that edit permission is enabled – this is
necessary to allow NSPIRES to concatenate submitted files into a single PDF
document; and (2) ensure that all fonts are embedded in the PDF file and that only
Type 1 or TrueType fonts are used. TeX and LaTeX users are strongly cautioned to
ensure that their settings conform with the paper size, font size, margins etc., listed
above. Do not include any digital signatures in the proposal document, NSPIRES
cannot concatenate these PDF files with the cover page, total budget, etc. For more

ROSES-22 SoS-23
information on creating NSPIRES compliant PDF documents see
https://nspires.nasaprs.com/tutorials/PDF_Guidelines.pdf. PDF files that do not meet
NASA requirements cannot be ingested by the NSPIRES system; such files may be
declared noncompliant and not submitted to peer review for evaluation.
There is a 20 MB size limit for proposals. Proposers may not use acronyms in the S/T/M
Section that are defined solely outside of the page-limited S/T/M section. Acronyms
must first be defined in the S/T/M Section.
(iii) Table of Work Effort and Redaction of Salary, Fringe and Overhead Costs
Peer reviewers need to see the individual effort that will be spent on the project,
whether at the proposing organization or not, whether NASA would be paying for it as a
result of this proposal or not. Thus, every proposal must include a Table of Personnel
and Work Effort (see example table below) that simply lists all of the planned work
commitment, by person or role without any technical details.
Example Table of Personnel and Work Effort
Person and/or Role Time charged to Time not charged Total Time per
this proposal to this proposal person/year

PI, Ed Mercer 3 months/year N/A 3 months/year

Co-I, Kelley Grayson 4 months/year N/A 4 months/year

Co-I, Dr. Claire Finn* N/A 1.5 months/year 1.5 months/year

Collaborator, Alara Kitan N/A de minimis de minimis

Grad Student, P. Bortusº N/A 12 months/year 12 months/year
* A letter of support is provided from the (foreign organization) Saturnian School of Medical
Sciences for Dr. Claire Finn, participating at no cost to this proposal.
º The Graduate student from Moclan College is funded by a FINESST award and thus
participating at no cost to this proposal.
Note, this table is outside of and is distinct from the budget and the page-limited main
part of the proposal and thus, unless otherwise stated in an individual program element,
any person time listed in the table of work effort that is offered at no cost by the
proposing organization is assumed to be an estimate of anticipated additional effort that
may be provided to the project as needed and is considered voluntary uncommitted
effort. Descriptions of the work that each team member would be performing must be
included in the page-limited S/T/M section the proposal, not in this table. The example
table presumes a simple case for which all investigators are working the same amount
of time on the project each year. The reality is often more complicated, and your table
should reflect the best estimate of the amount of time each participant will spend on the
project. Planetary Science Division Templates have been provided for those proposing
to Appendix C, and Earth Science Division Templates for the Table of Work Effort (and
Current and Pending Support) are now required for an increasing number of program
elements in Appendix A.
Peer reviewers do not need to know salaries or overhead rates to evaluate the cost
reasonableness of ROSES proposals. Thus, proposals should not include costs of

ROSES-22 SoS-24
salary, fringe, or overhead anywhere in the uploaded proposal PDF, including the
budget detail or justification sections in the main proposal, which will be seen by peer
reviewers. Unless otherwise specified by the program element, all proposers must
include all costs, including salary, fringe and overhead of NASA civil servants, all
subawards, and any separate Co-I awards in two places outside of the uploaded
proposal PDF: the NSPIRES web page budgets and the separately uploaded "Total
Budget" PDF file, see below and the walkthrough on this subject. Exceptions to this rule
are C.11 DDAP, which does not request budgets with the proposal, just cost category
(small, medium, or large) and Phase-2 proposals for the astrophysics observing
programs e.g., Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory General Investigator (D.5), Fermi
General Investigator (D.6), NuSTAR General Observer (D.9), TESS General
Investigator (D.10), and NICER General Observer (D.11) because those are cost-only
proposals (essentially just budgets) that are not peer reviewed. See Section IV(b)(viii).
However, peer reviewers certainly do need to see the costs of everything other than
salary, fringe, and overhead. Although quotes are not required, proposers are strongly
encouraged to include both adequate budget detail and justification for the peer
reviewers to evaluate whether costs of things (other than team members) are
reasonable. For example, if 6 Series B MSO Mixed Signal Oscilloscope that costs tens
of thousands of dollars is needed, the proposal must give the price in the detailed
budget and, in the budget justification, explain why such an expensive oscilloscope is
needed, when a TBS1000C or TBS2000B can be purchased for a fraction of the price.
In the budget justification in the main proposal PDF, proposers may refer to the time,
but not costs, for a subaward that involves salary, fringe or overhead, e.g., "1.5
months/year are allocated for Co-I Dr. Claire Finn, as can be seen in the Table of
Personnel and Work Effort. Dr. Finn will be funded via a subaward to the Saturnian
School of Medical Sciences. The total cost for that subaward is given in the NSPIRES
cover page budget in Section F line 5 and is included in the separately uploaded Total
Budget PDF file but is not included here in the proposal."
Almost all ROSES program elements are set up to allow proposers to fill out the
NSPIRES web page budgets. These NSPIRES web page budgets are not required for
Step-1 proposals. Unless otherwise specified in the ROSES program element, these
NSPIRES web page budgets should include all costs, including salary, fringe and
overhead of all participants. The full NSPIRES web page budgets will not be seen by
peer reviewers. Where more than one organization is involved, the total cost for the Co-I
organization is simply given as a single number in row 5, 8, or 9 of Section F (of the
NSPIRES cover page budget). When funds are going to Co-I organizations funded
directly by NASA, such as NASA centers and other government labs, then lines 8 or 9
should be used and customized. Row 10 in Section F is reserved for reporting any
subaward that does not have any salary component. Proposers are strongly
encouraged to read the FAQs with a walkthrough on this subject.
Almost all ROSES program elements are set up to allow proposers to separately upload
a "Total Budget" PDF along with their (full or Step-2) proposal. Unless otherwise
specified in the ROSES program element, all proposers are required to include this
separate Total Budget PDF. The Total Budget should simply include the full and
complete budget from your proposing organization and that of your Co-Is (in whatever is

ROSES-22 SoS-25
the standard form used by your organizations). This means that proposers need to get
this information from their Co-Investigators, whether or not they are Civil Servants.
Budgets are generally laid out by project year but since NASA Civil Servant salaries
must be charged to present fiscal year dollars, proposals that include NASA Civil
Servant salaries may need to phase the funds for NASA Centers by fiscal year. The
Total Budget PDF must lay out clearly how much is going to each organization,
indicating whether the funds are passing through the proposing organization and which
are not. Where the funds are passing through the proposing organization to a Co-I
organization, the Total Budget PDF must specify any overhead charged on funds
passing through. Such charges never apply to funds sent directly to Co-I organizations
such as NASA centers and other government labs. The Total Budget PDF is uploaded
in exactly the same way as the proposal PDF is uploaded, but by choosing document
type "Total Budget". This Total Budget file will not be seen by peer reviewers. These
budget files are not required for Step-1 proposals.
NASA Civil Servant time must be included in the summary table of work effort and all
costs for NASA civil servant investigators must be included in the budgets just as it
would be for any other team member. In general, it is not anticipated that directed work
to NASA Centers will overlap with work proposed via ROSES. However, any questions
about whether NASA Civil Servant participation on a ROSES proposal is already
covered by directed work and how to present this in a proposal budget should be
directed to the appropriate Headquarters SMD division R&A Lead, a list of which may
be found at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list/.
Proposers from JPL shall not include the JPL award fee in the funds requested via
ROSES, nor should the budgets of JPL Co-Investigators on proposals from other
institutions include the JPL award fee in their budgets. JPL award fees are paid for and
accounted for by a different mechanism than that used to fund awards from ROSES.
(iv) Submission of Proposals via NSPIRES, the NASA Proposal Data System
Proposals may be submitted electronically via NASA's Solicitation and Proposal
Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES). To submit a proposal via
NSPIRES, this NRA requires that the proposer register key data concerning the
intended submission with NSPIRES at https://nspires.nasaprs.com. Potential applicants
are urged to access this site well in advance of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and proposal
due dates of interest to familiarize themselves with its structure and enter the requested
identifier information. Potential PIs should ensure that their organization is also
registered in NSPIRES, as it is only an official from the PI's registered organization, not
the PI, who can submit a proposal.
Every individual named on the proposal’s electronic Cover Page form (see below) as a
team member (even Collaborators) must be registered in NSPIRES and must confirm
their commitment to the proposal and the organization through which they are
participating via NSPIRES prior to proposal submission. Team members will receive an
email from NSPIRES indicating that he/she has been added to the proposal and must
log in to NSPIRES to confirm.
• Once logged in, the team member should follow the link in the "Reminders and
Notifications" section of his NSPIRES homepage, titled "Need <role> confirmation

ROSES-22 SoS-26
 for proposal <title> for Solicitation <<solicitation number>>". On the "Team Member
Participation Confirmation" page, the proposal team member should read language
about the Organizational Relationship, then click the "Continue" button.
• If the contact information displayed on the "Team Member Profile" screen is out of
date, the proposal team member should update this information later using the
"Account Mgmt" link in the NSPIRES navigation bar across the top. Prior to making
that update, however, the team member should follow the on-screen prompts to
identify the organization through which he/she is participating on this proposal. Click
the "Link Relationship" button to the right side of the "Organizational Relationship"
banner. Select the organization from the "Link Proposal to an Association" part of
the page. If the correct organization is not displayed here, try using the "Add
Association" button to add the organization to this list. Then click the "Save" button
at the bottom of the page. If the team member cannot find the organization when
searching in the "Add Association" area (i.e., the organization is not registered), type
in the formal name in the space provided (or select "Self," if appropriate). Once the
organization is selected and the "Save" button is clicked, there is a confirmation
page that allows the team member to edit that relationship if it was chosen
incorrectly. Click "Continue".
• Note that the organization through which the proposal team member is participating
in the proposal might not be the proposal team member’s primary employer or
primary mailing address. If the address information is accurate (or once it has been
edited to be accurate), the proposal team member may log out of NSPIRES.
• NSPIRES will send an email to both the team member and the PI confirming that the
commitment was made, and the organization was identified. The PI may additionally
monitor the status of proposal team member commitments by examining the
"Relationship Confirmed" column on the Team Member page of the NSPIRES
proposal cover page record. Note that the proposal cannot be submitted until all
identified team members have confirmed their participating organizations.
Proposers must complete the required elements of the NSPIRES Proposal "Cover
Page" form to be able to submit a proposal. This form is composed of several distinct
sections: a Cover Page that contains the identifier information for the proposing
institution and personnel; a Proposal Summary that provides an overview of the
proposed investigation that is suitable for release through a publicly accessible archive
should the proposal be selected; Business Data that provides the proposed start and
end dates, as well as other proposal characteristics; a Budget form that contains a
budget summary of the proposed research effort; Program Specific Data that includes
required questions specific to ROSES and that particular program element; and
Proposal Team that provides the Co-Investigators and other participants in the
proposal. This Cover Page form is available for access and submission well in advance
of the proposal due dates given in Tables 2 and 3 of this NRA and remains open until
the proposal due date for each program element. Unless specified in the program
element description itself, no other web-based forms are required for proposal
submission via NSPIRES.
The proposer is responsible for assembling the complete proposal document for peer
review. The required elements of any proposal submitted in response to this NRA must

ROSES-22 SoS-27
be submitted as a single, searchable, unlocked PDF document that contains the
complete proposal, including the Science/Technical/Management section and budget
justification, assembled in the order provided in Table 1 and uploaded as a single
attachment. Unless otherwise specified in the program element the only permitted
separate attachments are the HEC request, if any, see Section I(e), and the Total
Budget file, see Section IV(b)(iii). Documents such as team member biographical
sketches, letters (e.g., of commitment or resource support), and current and pending
support, as well as the proposal abstract (proposal summary) may not be uploaded to
NSPIRES as separate files.
NSPIRES generates error and warning messages as part of the element check
concerning possibly missing data. An error (designated by an X in a red circle) will
preclude proposal submission to NASA by the AOR so those must be addressed prior
to submission. A warning, indicated by an exclamation mark (!) on a yellow triangle, is
an indication that data may be missing and can be ignored if the proposer has verified
that it's not referring to something essential to the proposal (e.g., "Yes, we know the
budget is only one year, it was intentional"). Any actions taken because of warnings are
at the PI's discretion.
Please do not attempt to download the Proposal Cover Page and incorporate it into the
uploaded Proposal Document. NSPIRES automatically includes it with the proposal.
Proposers are encouraged to begin their submission process early. NSPIRES help
topics may be accessed through the NSPIRES online help site at
https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/externalhelp/public/index.htm#t=First_Topic.htm.
For any technical questions not resolved with the available online help menus, contact
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376, Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal Holidays, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
(v) Submission of Proposals via Grants.gov
Grants.gov may be used in place of NSPIRES to submit proposals in response to
almost all program elements this ROSES NRA. Grants.gov is now using the Workspace
environment. Grants.gov requires that the PI use Workspace for either online
completion of forms or downloading of forms for completion offline. In addition,
proposers must download the program-specific instruction package from Grants.gov.
Identifying the appropriate application package requires the funding opportunity number
for that program element; the Grants.gov funding opportunity number may be found in
the Summary of Key Information table at the end of each program element. That
number will be of the form NNH22ZDA001N-XXXX where the "XXXX" will be an
abbreviation for that program, e.g., NNH22ZDA001N-HSR for Heliophysics Supporting
Research. Proposals submitted via Grants.gov must be submitted by the AOR.
Submitting a proposal via Grants.gov requires at least the following:
a. Grant researchers (PIs) do not need to register with Grants.gov. However, every
individual named in the proposal as a proposing team member in any role,
including PI, Co-Investigators, and Collaborators, as well as the PI’s organization,
must be registered in NSPIRES (https://nspires.nasaprs.com) and such individuals
must perform this registration themselves; no one may register a second party,

ROSES-22 SoS-28
 even the PI of a proposal in which that person is committed to participate. This
NSPIRES site is secure, and all information entered is strictly for NASA's use only.
b. Follow Grants.gov instructions provided at the website to download any software
tools or applications required to submit via Grants.gov.
c. Preview the application package from Grants.gov for either online completion or
downloading for completion offline by selecting "Preview" under "Package" for the
specific Funding Opportunity at https://www.grants.gov. Each program element
described in an appendix of ROSES requires a different application package and
has a different Funding Opportunity Number; the Funding Opportunity Number
may be found in the Summary of Key Information at the end of the program
element description in each appendix of ROSES. Enter the appropriate Funding
Opportunity Number to retrieve the desired application package. All ROSES
application packages may be found by searching on CFDA Number 43.001.
d. Note that Grants.gov proposers must additionally download the "Instructions" zip
file, as this includes a proposal summary form and the Program Specific Data form
that contains important questions about, for example, China and ITAR. The “Read
Me” file included in the instructions zip includes special instructions for submission
of proposals to DAPR programs.
e. When ready to apply, click "Apply" to create, complete, and submit a Workspace.
Completing a workspace allows proposers to complete all the required forms
online or download PDF versions to be uploaded later.
f. Complete the required Grants.gov forms, including the Standard Form 424
Application for Federal Assistance, research and research-related (R&R) Other
Project Information, R&R Senior/Key Person Profile, and R&R Budget. Every
named individual must be identified with the organization through which they are
participating in the proposal, regardless of their place of permanent employment or
preferred mailing address.
g. Complete the required NASA specific forms including NASA Other Project
Information, NASA PI and Authorized Representative Supplemental Data Sheet,
and NASA Senior/Key Person Supplemental Data Sheet (this form is only required
if there are Senior/Key Persons other than the PI).
h. Complete the NASA program-specific form that is required for the specific program
element. This form, which is usually required for all ROSES program element
submissions, is included as a PDF form within the proposal instruction package
downloaded from Grants.gov. The form, once completed, is attached to the NASA
Other Project Information form.
i. Create a proposal in PDF, including the Science/Technical/Management section
and all other required proposal sections (see the NASA Guidebook for Proposers).
Attach sections as separate PDF documents as prompted by Grants.gov. Do not
duplicate materials; if a document must be provided as a separate attachment, do
not also include it as part of the proposal narrative PDF file. Even though
Grants.gov permits the attachment of non-PDF documents, NASA requires that all
attached documents be PDF files, which conform to the specifications outlined in
Section IV(b)(ii) above. Be sure to include a separate "Total Budget" PDF file and,
if relevant, a separate "HEC Request" PDF file.

ROSES-22 SoS-29
 j. Because Grants.gov does not support the electronic commitment of team
members, statements of commitment from all team members must be provided as
letters attached to the proposal application at the place(s) specified by Grants.gov.
This statement must include confirmation of both the team member role in the
proposed effort (e.g., Co-Investigator, collaborator) and the identification of the
organization through which the team member will be participating.
k. Here is an example of a statement of commitment: "I acknowledge that I am
identified by name as <<role>> to the investigation, entitled <<name of
proposal>>, that is submitted by <<name of Principal Investigator>> to the NASA
Research Announcement <<alpha-numeric identifier>>, and that I intend to carry
out all responsibilities identified for me in this proposal. I understand that the extent
and justification of my participation as stated in this proposal will be considered
during peer review in determining in part the merits of this proposal. I have read
the entire proposal, including the management plan and budget, and I agree that
the proposal correctly describes my commitment to the proposed investigation. For
the purposes of conducting work for this investigation, my participating
organization is <<insert name of organization>>."
l. Submit the proposal via the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); the PI
may not submit the application to Grants.gov unless he/she is an AOR.
m. Within a few days of submitting the proposal to Grants.gov, the PI and AOR should
receive an email verifying submission of the proposal to the NSPIRES system, for
review. Any proposer not receiving such a verification should contact the NSPIRES
Help Desk.
Potential applicants are urged to access the Grants.gov site well in advance of the
proposal due date(s) of interest to familiarize themselves with its structure and
download the appropriate application packages and tools.
Potential applicants considering employing Grants.gov should pay special attention to
program elements that require a Notice of Intent, as Grants.gov does not provide the
capability to submit an NOI. See Section IV(b)vi, below.
Additional instructions for formatting and submitting proposals via Grants.gov may be
found in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Instructions for the use of Grants.gov may
be found at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/workspace-overview.html.
Instructions for NASA-specific forms and NASA program-specific forms may be found in
the application instructions package. For any questions that cannot be resolved with the
available online help menus and documentation, requests for assistance may be
directed by email to support@grants.gov or by telephone to (800) 518-4726 twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week, except Federal holidays when the support center is
closed.
(vi) Notice of Intent to Propose
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose is a brief summary of the planned work by the
proposer. Such statements are of used to identify expertise needed for the review panel
and to avoid inviting panelists who are planning to propose. Most of the program
elements in Earth Science (Appendix A) and Astrophysics (Appendix D) request NOIs.
In most cases where NOIs are requested, they are not required for submission of

ROSES-22 SoS-30
proposals. However, some programs, (e.g., D.3 APRA, and D.7 SAT) require an NOI as
a prerequisite for submission of a full proposal. For those program elements where the
NOI is mandatory, this will be stated clearly in the program element and NOI due dates
will be marked "mandatory" in the tables of due dates. NOIs may be submitted via
NSPIRES directly by the PI by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date given in Tables
2 and 3 of this NRA; no action by an organization’s AOR is required to submit an NOI.
Moreover, some program elements do not request an NOI. For example, those
programs to which one may submit at any time don't request an NOI. See the third
bullet in Section I(d) for a list of those programs.
Grants.gov does not provide NOI capability; therefore, when required (or requested) by
a program element, NOIs must (or should) be submitted via NSPIRES, whether or not
the proposal will be submitted via NSPIRES or Grants.gov. Interested proposers must
register with NSPIRES before it can be accessed for use. NSPIRES is open for the
submission of NOIs for typically 30 days, starting about 90 days in advance of the due
date for the proposals themselves. When NOIs are requested but not required, late
NOIs may be submitted by email to the main point of contact given in the Summary
Table of Key Information at the end of the individual program element.
(vii) The Two-Step Proposal Process
Some ROSES program elements require that proposals be submitted using a two-step
process in which NOIs are replaced by required Step-1 proposals. Step-1 proposals are
abbreviated presentations of the intended research and, as proposals, they must be
submitted by the Step-1 due date given in Tables 2 and 3 of this NRA by the
organization Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). The Step-1 proposal is a
prerequisite for submission of a full Step-2 proposal, but it does not obligate offerors to
submit a Step-2 (full) proposal later.
For some program elements, the purpose of Step-1 proposals is simply to avoid
conflicts of interest or appearance of bias in the assembly of the review panel and no
responses to their Step-1 proposals will be provided to proposers. For other program
elements, Step-1 proposals may be evaluated to determine if the anticipated research
project exhibits sufficient programmatic relevance and responsiveness to the program
element to permit or encourage submission of full Step-2 proposals. Thus, the two-step
process can be structured in two ways: 1) A Nonbinding two-step process in which
Step-2 proposals may be submitted even if the preceding Step-1 proposals were
discouraged or 2) A binding two-step process in which Step-2 proposals can only be
submitted if "invited" after the evaluation of the Step-1 proposals. In any case, those
who submitted Step-1 proposals will be informed no later than four weeks prior to the
Step-2 due date whether they are, or are not, "encouraged" or "invited" to submit a full
Step-2 proposal.
The required Step-1 proposal is typically just the contents of the 4000-character limited
Proposal Summary field in the cover pages but rarely may require a PDF document
upload. When the Step-1 proposal is an uploaded PDF document, the permitted page
length and required contents for the Step-1 proposal will be specified in the program
element description. In some cases (e.g., Appendix C, Planetary Science), the team
may be adjusted between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposal, but in other cases (e.g.,

ROSES-22 SoS-31
Appendix B, Heliophysics), changes to the team are limited. When a Step-2 proposal is
created, the team members and their confirmation are carried forward from the Step-1
automatically. However, if a Step-1 team member has changed organizations since
confirmation on the Step-1 proposals, this could prevent the submission of the Step-2
proposal. When a confirmed Step-1 team member has changed organizations, the
proposer must instruct the team member to update his or her participation confirmation
in NSPIRES for the Step-2 proposal and inform the NASA POC immediately.
Please read the program element carefully. Budget data will not be requested as part of
the Step-1 proposal. Unlike a Notice of Intent, which may be submitted by an individual,
the Step-1 proposal must be submitted by an Authorized Organizational Representative
of the proposing organization. Proposers are encouraged to read the instructions
document on Submitting Step-1 proposals that appears under "Other Documents" on
the NSPIRES web page of any program element that requires a Step-1 proposal.
The tables of due dates clearly indicate which program elements require a Step-1
proposal. At the time of release of this ROSES-2022 NRA, the program elements that
solicit proposals using a two-step process include (but are not limited to): A.2, Land-
Cover/Land-Use Change, approximately one quarter of the Heliophysics program
elements (Appendix B), and several program elements in Planetary Science (Appendix
C), Space Biology calls in Appendix E, and PRISM, Exoplanets Research and Habitable
World calls in Appendix F.
(viii) The Two-Phase Proposal Process
On occasion, NASA will solicit proposals using a two-phase proposal process for which
Phase-1 is a request for an observation to be performed by a NASA space observatory
as part of a NASA general investigator/observer program element. Phase-2 is a funding
request that is not peer reviewed. As such the Phase-2 proposals are not subject to the
requirements in Section IV(b)iii to omit salary, fringe and overhead from submitted
budgets. An NOI may or may not be requested, and the Phase-1 observing request
must be submitted to the observatory web page by the proposal due date in Tables 2
and 3 of this NRA. Note the time and mode of proposal submission.
This ROSES NRA contains a number of general investigator/observer program
elements in Astrophysics that use the two-phase proposal process: Neil Gehrels Swift
Observatory General Investigator (D.5), Fermi General Investigator (D.6), NuSTAR
General Observer (D.9), the TESS General Investigator Program (D.10), and NICER
General Observer (D.11).
Phase-1 observing requests for these programs cannot be submitted via either
NSPIRES or Grants.gov. They must be submitted via the URL given in the Summary
Table of Key Information given at the end of program element description. The Phase-2
proposal for funding must be submitted via NSPIRES by a proposal due date that will be
announced when NASA announces the disposition of the Phase-1 observing requests.
The process and requirements for the submission of Phase-1 observing requests and
Phase-2 proposals may differ for each program element; proposers should read
carefully the relevant program element appendix to this ROSES NRA. The tables of due
dates clearly indicate which program elements require a Phase-1 proposal.

ROSES-22 SoS-32
 (c) Proposal Due Dates
Tables 2 and 3 of this NRA, which will be posted at
https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2022table2 and
https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2022table3, respectively, provide proposal due
dates and hypertext links to descriptions of the solicited program elements in the
appendices of this NRA. For each program element, the electronic proposal must be
submitted in its entirety by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) no later
than the proposal deadline (time) on the appropriate proposal due date given in Tables
2 and 3 of this NRA. Unless stated otherwise in the program element (e.g., Phase-1
proposals in Astrophysics), the proposal deadline is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time and must
be submitted electronically using either NSPIRES or Grants.gov (see Sections IV(b)(i-iii)
above). Regarding due dates see also https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD.
Proposals submitted after the proposal due date and deadline will be labeled "late" by
the NSPIRES system and proposals (including certain types of Step-1 proposals) that
are late will be handled in accordance with the SMD Policy on Late Proposals. The vast
majority of late proposals are rejected without review.
(d) Funding Restrictions
In addition to the default Agency funding restrictions and requirements given in the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the GCAM, the following information and/or
restrictions are applicable to this ROSES NRA:
• The estimated funding and number of proposals anticipated to be funded, as shown
in the Summary of Key Information at the end of each program element, are subject
to the availability of appropriated funds, as well as the submission of a sufficient
number of proposals of adequate merit.
• Unless specifically noted otherwise in the specific ROSES appendix and/or program
element, the proposing PI organizations are expected to subaward funding for all
proposed Co-Is at non-Government organizations, even though this may result in a
higher proposal cost because of subawarding fees. Rare exceptions will be
considered on a case-by-case basis when requested in the proposal and found to be
in the interest of the Government and consistent with appropriate law, regulation,
policy, and practice.
• Unless otherwise noted in a program element, SMD will send funds directly to Co-Is
at NASA Centers and other U.S. Government organizations, including JPL. Thus, if
a proposal submitted by a university has a Government Co-I, the funds will not pass
through the university, so the university (or other institution that receives a grant)
may not include overhead or any other pass-through charges on those funds. Funds
for Co-Is who do not work for the Government would pass through the university and
those charges may be applied. Regardless of whether a Co-I will be funded through
a subaward via the proposing institution or funded directly by NASA, the cover page
budget for the proposal must include all funding requested from NASA for the
proposed investigation, including salaries for NASA civil servants, see
Section IV(b)iii. Time for Co-Is, costs of procurements (not labor or overhead), and
other (non-salary) direct costs (e.g. technical support costs for on-site contractors) at
NASA Centers and other U.S. Government organizations must be justified in the

ROSES-22 SoS-33
 proposal’s Budget Narrative. No indirect burden from non-governmental
organizations should be applied to funds for Co-Is at NASA Centers and other U.S.
Government organizations. (See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers).
• For most federal assistance awards allowable costs are governed by 2 CFR Part
200. All proposed costs, including matching or cost sharing, must be allowable,
allocable, and reasonable. Funds may only be used for the project. Unless otherwise
directed in 2 CFR 200, for changes to the negotiated indirect cost rate that occur
throughout the project period, you must apply the rate negotiated for that year,
whether higher or lower than at the time of the initial award. All activities charged
under indirect costs must be allowed under the cost principles in 2 CFR Part 200. In
general, the construction of facilities is not an allowed activity for any of the program
elements solicited in this NRA. As described in the GCAM Section 4 (Limitations),
facilities are different and distinct from equipment, which may be an allowable
expense.
• Computers are allowable under grants if they are essential for the project. It is no
longer required that computers be used exclusively for the project. See ROSES FAQ
#27 for more information on this topic.
• Travel, including travel outside of the U.S. by team members at U.S. organizations,
is allowed, if necessary for the meaningful completion of the proposed investigation,
including publicizing its results at appropriate professional meetings. Proposers from
NASA Centers should consult the latest NASA policy document regarding
restrictions on travel funding. Note that selection of a proposal and approval of a
proposed budget that includes travel for civil servants does not guarantee that a
NASA Center has sufficient travel authority to approve the proposed travel under
NASA's reduced travel budget. For those at non-governmental organizations: if it
was in your budget and the proposal was selected without comments or adjustments
to that budget then you have prior approval. However, NASA funding may not be
used for travel expenses by any team member who is not participating as a member
of a U.S. organization.
• In general, proposals for sponsorship of topical workshops, symposia, and
conferences are solicited through the ROSES program element F.2 Topical
Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences.
• Regardless of whether a conference is sponsored by NASA, individual conference
travel by grantees is permitted and proposers from universities, or other eligible non-
governmental institutions, may include a budget for travel to workshops, symposia,
and conferences. Proposers from NASA Centers should consult their Center
implementing policy on the latest NASA guidance on conference spending and
reporting requirements. Note that selection of a proposal and approval of a proposed
budget that includes travel for civil servant does not guarantee that a NASA Center
has sufficient travel authority under NASA’s reduced travel budget to approve the
proposed travel.
• Profit for commercial organizations is not allowable under grant or cooperative
agreement awards but is allowable under contract awards. Costs for managing the
project may be allowed under a grant. These costs, whether direct charges or part of
the indirect cost agreement, must be consistent with 2 CFR 200 Subpart E.

ROSES-22 SoS-34
• NASA funding may not be used for subcontracted foreign research efforts, i.e., grant
funds may not pay for research at non-U.S. organizations. U.S. research award
recipients may directly purchase supplies and/or services from non-U.S. sources
that do not constitute research, but award funds may not be used to fund research
carried out by non-U.S. organizations. However, a foreign national may receive
remuneration through a NASA award for the conduct of research while employed
either full- or part-time by a U.S. organization. Special restrictions apply to
collaboration with China, see Section III(c).
• As noted in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, costs of preparing, publishing, and
disseminating the results of NASA funded research (e.g., page charges, open
access fees, etc.) may be included in research proposals and are allowable charges
against the grant, as long as the charges are levied impartially on all research
papers published by the journal.
• Non-NASA U.S. Government organizations should propose based on full-cost
accounting, unless no such standards are in effect; in that case such proposers
should follow the Managerial Cost Accounting Standards for the Federal
Government as recommended by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
Board. NSPIRES cover pages and uploaded "Total" budgets must include all costs
that will be paid out of the resulting award.
• Regardless of whether functioning as a team lead or as a team member, personnel
from NASA Centers must propose budgets consistent with the current NASA
accounting implementation for the requested year of performance. All NSPIRES
cover page budgets must include all costs that will be paid out of the resulting
award, including costs of NASA civil servants. Costs that will not be paid out of the
resulting award, but are paid from a separate NASA budget (e.g., center
management and overhead; CESO) and are not based on the success of this
specific proposal, should not be included in the proposal budget. For example,
CESO should not be included in the proposal budget while other direct charges
(including procurements and labor) to the proposed research task should be
included. NASA civil servant Co-Is must provide to the proposing organization all
costs requested of the ROSES program, so that the proposing organization may
correctly complete the cover page budgets in NSPIRES.
(e) Other Submission Requirements
(i) Demonstration of Access to Required Facility
For any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must state which team
member has access or provide a letter of resource support from the facility or resource
confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the proposed period. ROSES
no longer requires that the facility or resource be under the "control" of the team
member.
(ii) Inclusion Plan Pilot Study
SMD is committed to fostering an environment that supports NASA's core value of
Inclusion and implementing Strategy 4.1 from A Vision for Scientific Excellence
(formerly known as the Science Plan). Creating an atmosphere of inclusion and respect

ROSES-22 SoS-35
for all, as outlined in NASA's Anti-harassment Program and DEIA policies, allows us to
value the strengths afforded by both our commonalities and differences with an aim to
fully engage all talents, ideas, and perspectives. In keeping with this core value, and
expanding on the Inclusion Plan Pilot Program begun in 2021, programs in ROSES-22
(e.g., A.23 ESI, A.28 IDS, B.22 SWxCs, D.3 APRA, D.7 SAT, D.12 TCAN, D.13
Pioneers, D.15 LPS, D.16 ADSPS, and F.10 PRISM) will require the addition of an
Inclusion Plan to:
• Identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for
those carrying out the proposed investigation,
• Address ways in which the investigation team will work against these barriers to
create and sustain such an environment, such as fostering communication and
openness amongst the team, involving under-represented groups in proposal
activities, etc., and
• Discuss contributions the proposed investigation will make to the training and
development of a diverse and inclusive scientific workforce.
The default is that these plans will two pages, immediately following the Data
Management Plan. More information will be provided in those program elements
participating in this pilot study. The plan will be evaluated by IDEA experts. Feedback
will be provided to the proposers as part of the panel review summaries but will not
contribute to the adjectival ratings or selection recommendations. However, funding
may be withheld until an adequate Inclusion Plan is received. If the NASA requested
revision of, or addition to, an Inclusion Plan will involve extra cost, a revised budget may
also be submitted.
Proposers seeking to reap the benefits of a more diverse team may consider, for
example, referring to the Minority Serving Institution (MSI) Exchange at
https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/ to find potential participants on their proposals.

V. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION

(a) Evaluation Criteria
As stated in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, proposals are ordinarily evaluated on
three criteria: intrinsic merit, relevance, and cost. A ROSES proposal that is not relevant
is not selectable, no matter what the scores for merit or cost, or mean or median of all
three criteria scores. Indeed, SMD may return without peer review a proposal deemed
to be not relevant. The manner in which SMD evaluates ROSES proposals for
relevance and cost varies from program to program. ROSES proposals may be scored
by peer reviewers for all three criteria on the full 5-level scale from the Guidebook, or
the proposal may be scored on the full scale only for merit, with relevance and/or cost
evaluated on an abridged scale, or with only comments provided for relevance and/or
cost, or the peer review panel may not be asked to comment on relevance and cost at
all.
Note the following specific points:
• Some of the program elements discussed in Appendices A through F will give
specific factors, based on the solicited research objectives, which will be

ROSES-22 SoS-36
 considered when evaluating a proposal’s science and/or technical merits and/or its
relevance to program objectives.
• Unless otherwise stated, relevance will be judged by whether the proposal
addresses goals and objectives for the ROSES Appendix and/or specific program
element to which it was submitted, rather than NASA's broader goals. Unless
otherwise stated in the program element, relevance of the proposed work is judged
based on whether the work proposed is deemed to be relevant, independent of
whether or not it includes an overt, clear and direct statement of relevance. That is,
unless otherwise stated in the program element, no proposal will be returned as
noncompliant for lack of a relevance section or statement, and inclusion of a
relevance section or statement is no guarantee that the proposal will be judged
relevant. Please read the program elements carefully. See also Section I(g).
• Cost data for U.S. proposals may be evaluated by peer review (for
reasonableness) and by NASA program personnel (for consistency with the
available budget). Proposers must follow the budget requirements in
Section IV(b)iii and Table 1 of this document. When evaluating the cost
reasonableness of the proposals, reviewers will assess whether the proposed level
of effort (i.e., labor FTEs) and the proposed other direct costs (i.e., supplies,
equipment, travel) are commensurate with those required to accomplish the goals
of the investigation. Salary levels, fringe benefit rates, and overhead rates are not
part of that evaluation, and will be hidden from peer reviewers.
• Except in rare instances where it is explicitly acknowledged in the program
element (e.g., A.40 Ecological Forecasting when it’s solicited), neither the
existence of proposed voluntary cost sharing, nor the lack thereof, nor the
magnitude of such cost sharing will be used as evaluation factors or as a
precondition for award. If voluntary cost sharing is proposed, the proposer should
describe, in detail, any proposed cost sharing arrangements (see Section III(d)
above). Please note that the Table of Personnel and Work Effort is no longer in the
budget section and the Guidebook explicitly notes that any planned work
commitment not funded by NASA is not considered cost sharing as defined in 2
CFR § 200.29.
• The NASA Guidebook for Proposers gives definitions for the five scores on the full
five-level scale (from Excellent down to Poor). NASA may provide decision letters
and/or evaluations with intermediate scores such as "Excellent/Very Good".
• A NASA awards officer will conduct a pre-award review of risk associated with the
proposer as required by 2 CFR 200.206. For all proposals selected for award, the
Grant Officer will review the submitting organization’s information available through
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and
the System for Award Management (SAM) to include checks on entity core data,
registration expiration date, active exclusions, and delinquent federal debt.
• For proposal evaluation and other administrative processing, NASA may find it
necessary to release information submitted by the proposer to individuals not
employed by NASA. Business information that would ordinarily be entitled to
confidential treatment may be included in the information released to these
individuals. Accordingly, by submission of this proposal, the proposer hereby
consents to a limited release of its confidential business information (CBI). Except

ROSES-22 SoS-37
 where otherwise provided by law, NASA will permit the limited release of CBI only
pursuant to non-disclosure agreements signed by the assisting contractor or
subcontractor, and their individual employees and peer reviewers who may require
access to the CBI to perform the assisting contract.
(b) Review and Selection Processes
Review and selection of proposals submitted to this NRA will be consistent with the
policies and provisions given in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, the SMD Peer
Review Policy and the SMD policy on avoidance of Peer Review Conflicts of Interest.
Although not part of the peer review process, the selection official may take into account
programmatic considerations such as impact on current or future missions, balance
across: subdisciplines, technologies, methodologies, career stage, risk, innovation,
types of institutions (e.g., MSI, PUI, vs. R1), and project size (such as funding several
small investigations instead of one large one).
Unless otherwise specified, the SMD Division Director responsible for a research
program (or a delegate, such as the R&A Lead) is its Selection Official.
SMD is strongly committed to ensuring that the review of proposals is performed in an
equitable and fair manner that reduces the impacts of any unconscious biases. To this
end, selected program elements under ROSES will employ a dual-anonymous peer
review (DAPR) process in which, not only are proposers not told the identity their
reviewers, reviewers are not told the identity of the proposers until after they have
evaluated all of the anonymized proposals.
DAPR will be applied to proposals submitted to: A.18 Aura Science Team and
Atmospheric Composition Modeling and Analysis Program, A.26 Earth Science U.S.
Participating Investigator, A.32 Studies with ICESat-2, B.4, Heliophysics Guest
Investigators-Open, B.16 Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning-Ready Data, C.7 New
Frontiers Data Analysis Program, C.8 Lunar Data Analysis, C.9 Mars Data Analysis,
C.10 Cassini Data Analysis Program, and C.11 Discovery Data Analysis, D.2
Astrophysics Data Analysis, all Astrophysics GO/GI programs (D.5, D.6, D.9-D.11),
D.16 Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor Science, D.17 XRISM Guest Scientist
Program, and F.3 Exoplanets Research. Proposers to these program elements must
adhere to the instructions in those program elements on how to prepare anonymized
proposals. Also, detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals will be posted on
the NSPIRES page for these ROSES elements and at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review.
In brief, proposers to these program elements will provide an anonymized version of the
proposal for peer review, and a separate not anonymized "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" appendix document that contains identifying expertise and resources
information. DAPR panels will be instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals
based on their scientific merit, without taking into account the proposing team
qualifications. As a final check, and only after the evaluation is finalized for all
proposals, the panel will be provided with the separate non-anonymized Expertise and
Resources document to assess the team capabilities required to execute the proposed
science investigation.

ROSES-22 SoS-38
In ROSES-2022 SMD will continue to invite proposers to indicate on the NSPIRES
cover page whether (and why) their proposal is both high risk and high impact and
reviewers will assess the (intellectual) risk and impact of ROSES proposals.
If NASA anticipates that the total Federal share (translation: the awarded amount) on
any award under ROSES will be greater than the simplified acquisition threshold
(currently $250K) over the period of performance (see 2 CFR § 200.88 Simplified
Acquisition Threshold), NASA is required to review and consider any information about
the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible
through the System for Award Management (SAM, https://www.sam.gov/SAM/)
(currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). The applicant, at its option, may review
information in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM
and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously
entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible
through SAM. NASA will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the
other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a
judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance
under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as
described in 2 CFR § 200.206 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by
applicants.
(c) Service as a Peer Reviewer
The success of NASA’s research program rests on the quality of peer review. NASA will
contact expert investigators and ask them to serve as peer reviewers. Since those
whose proposals were selected in prior competitions are highly qualified and may not be
submitting a proposal to the current competition, they are highly encouraged to serve on
SMD peer review panels. Any qualified person who wants to gain insight into our review
process is encouraged to volunteer by filling out one of the review forms at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/volunteer-review-panels or by sending an email to
the manager of the program of interest, see the SARA program officer list. It is good
experience for early-career scientists, and the addition of new reviewers is healthy for
the process. We are eager to have qualified reviewers from institutions not normally
funded by SMD.
(d) Processes for Appeals
(i) Reconsideration by SMD
SMD has a process for requesting a debrief and/or reconsideration of a declined
proposal submitted in response to an SMD NASA Research Announcement and
Cooperative Agreement Notices. Reconsideration may be requested if the PI believes
that the proposal evaluation contained factual errors or was otherwise handled
improperly. This process is described in the SMD Policy on Reconsideration (SPD-09C)
available in the "Library" section of the SARA website at https://sara.nasa.gov).

ROSES-22 SoS-39
 (ii) Ombudsman Program
The NASA Procurement Ombudsman Program is available under this NRA as a
procedure for addressing concerns and disagreements. The clause at NASA FAR
Supplement (NFS) 1852.215-84 ("Ombudsman") is incorporated into this NRA.
The cognizant ombudsman is
Jason Detko
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Procurement
Email: agency-procurementombudsman@nasa.gov
(iii) Protests
Only contract awards are subject to bid protest, either at the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) or with the Agency, as defined in FAR 33.101. The provisions at FAR
52.233-2 (Service of Protest) and NFS 1852.233-70 (Protests to NASA) are
incorporated into this NRA. Under both of these provisions, the designated official for
receipt of protests to the Agency and copies of protests filed with the GAO is
Jason Detko
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Procurement
Email: jason.t.detko@nasa.gov
(e) Anticipated Selection Announcement and Federal Award Dates
SMD's goal is to announce selections within 150 days of the proposal due date and
within 60 days after the conclusion of the peer review. Selections are typically
announced between 150 days and 220 days after the proposal due date. Although there
are many reasons why selections are not announced earlier, the most common are the
uncertainty in the NASA budget at the time selection decisions could be made and the
time required to conduct an appropriate peer review and selection process. NASA does
not usually announce new selections until the funds needed for those awards are
approved through the Federal budget process. Therefore, a delay in the budget process
for NASA usually results in a delay of the selection announcement date. After 150 days
have passed since the proposal due date, proposers may contact the responsible
Program Officer listed at the conclusion of that program element and on the SARA web
page. If the program officer does not respond proposers may send an inquiry to
SARA@nasa.gov.
In order to announce selection decisions as soon as is practical, even in the presence of
budget uncertainties, the Selection Official may make and announce selection decisions
about some proposals and defer decisions on others. If a Selection Official uses this
option, then proposers may be told that a proposal has been "selected", "declined," or
that a decision has not yet been made. If a decision has not yet been made, then those
proposals are termed "selectable" and will be considered for a supplemental selection if
circumstances allow. Eventually proposers will be notified whether their proposal is
selected or is no longer being considered for selection. All proposers will be notified via
NSPIRES and provided with a written review (usually the panel evaluation) of the
proposal. Proposers may contact the Program Officer for a "debriefing" to gain a better
understanding of the evaluation process and the reasoning supporting the decision not
to select the proposal, see the SMD Reconsideration Policy for more information.

ROSES-22 SoS-40
Information that successful proposers must submit after notification of award may
include evidence of compliance with requirements relating to human subjects or
information needed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA 42
U.S.C. 4321-4370h), see Section VI(d).

VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

As mentioned above, grants and cooperative agreements will be subject to the policies
and provisions identified in the regulations at 2 CFR 200 and 2 CFR 1800, the NASA
Grants and Cooperative Agreements Manual (GCAM), and contracts will be subject to
the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and the NASA FAR
Supplement.
(a) Award Notices
All proposers will be notified via NSPIRES from which they will be able to retrieve their
proposal evaluation and what is often called "decision" or "notification" letter (called a
"Notification of Intent to Make a Federal Award" in the GCAM). If a proposal is selected,
the business office of the offeror will be contacted by a NASA Grants Officer from the
NASA Shared Services Center, who is the only official authorized to obligate the
Government. Any costs incurred by the proposer in anticipation of an award will be
subject to 2 CFR Section 1800.209, Pre-award costs. NASA waives the approval
requirement for pre-award costs of up to 90 days.
(b) Administrative and National Policy Requirements
By default, this solicitation does not invoke any special administrative or national policy
requirements: 2 CFR 200, 2 CFR 1800, and the Grants and Cooperative Agreement
Manual will apply to any awards that derive from this NRA, as applicable. Note that the
research terms and conditions have been updated - see Section 5.10.1 of the GCAM for
more information. Moreover, when a grant or cooperative agreement is issued for
research, additional research terms and conditions apply – see section 5.10.2 of the
GCAM and for NASA's implementation of the November 2020 changes to 2 CFR 200
including revised Research Terms and Conditions see the Agency implementation
statements and the NSF website.
Awards from this funding announcement that are issued under 2 CFR 1800 are subject
to the Federal Research Terms and Conditions (RTC) located at
https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/rtc.jsp. In addition to the RTC and NASA-specific
guidance, three companion resources can also be found on the website: Appendix A -
Prior Approval Matrix, Appendix B - Subaward Requirements Matrix, and Appendix C -
National Policy Requirements Matrix.
(c) Reporting
The reporting requirements for awards made through this NRA will be consistent with
2 CFR 200.327-.329. Award recipients must also comply with reporting requirements
found in 2 CFR 180.335 and 2 CFR 180.350. Unless otherwise noted, ROSES satisfies
the requirement in 2 CFR 200 for Increased Focus on Performance (a.k.a., Results-
Oriented Accountability for Federal Grants) by specifying that the goals, objectives,
tasks and timelines in the proposal are those against which the proposers must report

ROSES-22 SoS-41
(typically annually, but sometimes more often e.g., for instrument development/flight
programs) and that is how SMD assesses performance for ROSES federal assistance
awards. Programs that require progress reporting more frequent than annually will
clearly state the nature and cadence of the requirement (e.g., quarterly quad charts) in
the program element.
As part of their (typically annual) technical reports, award recipients must report on
progress not just in conducting the research but also archiving of final peer-reviewed
manuscripts and, as applicable, consistent with their data management plans, archiving
of data and code, see Section II(c) Increasing Access to the Results of Federally
Funded Research.
If the total value of your currently active awards from all Federal awarding agencies
exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of this
Federal award, additional reporting requirements will apply. See 2 CFR 200 Appendix
XII—Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.
If the total Federal share of an award includes more than $500,000 over the award's
period of performance, NASA must include the term and condition available in Appendix
XII - Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters. See
also §200.113 Mandatory disclosures. The non-Federal entity or applicant for a Federal
award must disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the Federal awarding agency or
pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or
gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. Non-Federal entities that have
received a Federal award including the term and condition outlined in Appendix XII -
Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters - are
required to report certain civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings to SAM. Failure to
make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in §200.338
Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See also 2 CFR part
180, 31 U.S.C. 3321, and 41 U.S.C. 2313(d) Compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act.
All awards made in response to proposals to this solicitation must comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While most research awards will not trigger
action-specific NEPA review, and the majority of grant-related activities are categorically
excluded, there are some activities, including international actions, that will require
NEPA review. A blanket NASA Grants Record of Environmental Consideration
(REC) provides NEPA coverage for these anticipated activities. The NSPIRES cover
pages include questions to determine whether a specific proposal falls within the Grants
REC. These questions must be completed as part of the proposal submission process.
Activities outside of the bounding conditions of the Grants REC will require additional
NEPA analysis. Examples of actions that will likely require NEPA analysis include, but
are not limited to: suborbital-class flights not conducted by a NASA Program Office (see
Section VIII); activities involving groundbreaking construction/fieldwork; and certain
payload activities such as the use of expendable weather reconnaissance devices
(dropsondes). Proposers of such activities are encouraged to plan and budget for any
anticipated environmental impacts and communicate with Tina Norwood, NASA NEPA
Manager, at tina.norwood-1@nasa.gov or (202) 358-7324.

ROSES-22 SoS-42
 (d) Acknowledgement of Support for Antarctic Access
For science projects that receive assistance from the U.S. Antarctic Program, this
support must be acknowledged in publications. The acknowledgement should include:
"Logistical support for this project in Antarctica was provided by the U.S. National
Science Foundation through the U.S. Antarctic Program." Any additional requirements
will be specified in the program element description.

VII. POINTS OF CONTACT

General questions and comments about the policies of this NRA may be directed to:
Max Bernstein
SMD Lead for Research
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: sara@nasa.gov
Note: Proposals must not be submitted to this address. Proposals must be submitted
electronically, as described in Section IV(b)(iv) above.
Specific questions about a given program element in this NRA should be directed to the
Program Officer(s) listed in the Summary Table of Key Information at the end of each
program element appendix. Up-to-date contact information for program officers can also
be found online at the SARA web page's Program Officers List at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list.
Points of contact for suborbital-class platforms can be found in Section VIII(c).
Inquiries about accessing or using the NASA proposal submission web interface located
at https://nspires.nasaprs.com should be directed by an email that includes a telephone
number to nspires-help@nasaprs.com or by calling (202) 479-9376. This help center is
staffed Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Inquiries about accessing or using Grants.gov located at https://www.grants.gov should
be directed by an email to support@grants.gov or by calling (800) 518-4726 twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week, except Federal holidays when the center is closed.
Students, faculty or staff in programs receiving NASA financial assistance, such as
grant awards from this solicitation, may raise allegations of discrimination, including
harassment, by contacting the NASA Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity.
Information on filing a complaint through ODEO at https://missionstem.nasa.gov/filing-a-
complaint.html.
Grantees may not create or operate public social media accounts with use of the NASA
name, likeness or emblems, without prior approval from NASA. For information or
approval please contact Emily Furfaro at emily.furfaro@nasa.gov.

VIII. OTHER INFORMATION: FLIGHT-BASED RESEARCH INVESTIGATIONS

Flight-based research and/or technology development investigations are solicited in all
of the five ROSES Appendices corresponding to the SMD Science Divisions (A-E), and

ROSES-22 SoS-43
may also be solicited in Cross-Division Appendix F. Unless otherwise specified in a
program element, flight-based research or technology development investigations
solicited through ROSES are managed using the requirements of NPR 7120.8A, have
modest costs (compared to flight missions solicited via announcements of opportunity
that fall under 7120.5), and reduced mission assurance requirements appropriate for a
research program. Given the nature of the work solicited, based on the guidance in
Section 3 of the GCAM awards to non-governmental organizations will be federal
assistance (i.e., grants or, if NASA provides or procures the ride, cooperative
agreements). Hereinafter "flight" refers to these kinds of investigations. If contracts are
solicited and/or selected projects will be managed under 7120.5, the program element
will say so explicitly.
(a) Overview of Flight Platforms
Flight investigations are of three types depending on destination.
• Suborbital (e.g., aircraft, balloons, sounding rockets, rocket powered vehicles)
Including:
o Traditional NASA-provided balloons and sounding rockets
o Commercial suborbital platforms procured via STMD's Flight Opportunities
Program (FOP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts
o Proposer-provided commercial suborbital launch vehicles
• Earth orbit (e.g., International Space Station payloads) and
• Beyond Earth Orbit (e.g., to the Moon).
While, in most cases, enumerated above the destination corresponds to a particular
platform, SmallSats/CubeSats are applicable to all destinations. Since each platform
has its own point of contact, subsection (c) below, is organized by platform. General
requirements for proposals to use any of these platforms (except aircraft, see below)
are discussed in this section of ROSES. Note: NASA Flight Opportunities Program
(FOP) is no longer using the term suborbital reusable launch vehicle. They now refer to
'Rocket Powered Vehicles' including both suborbital launch vehicles that reach high
altitudes and may include periods of microgravity, as well as lander vehicles that
specialize in entry, descent, and landing technologies. Both of these classes of vehicles
are typically recoverable and reusable after launch.
Proposers who would use aircraft should refer to Section 6.5 of A.1, the Earth Science
Research Program Overview and https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/.
Generally, proposals for investigations that are carried out through development,
launch, and operation of a short duration orbital experiment, such as one on a CubeSat
or ISS-based project, are permitted in any ROSES program element that solicits
investigations for use on suborbital-class platforms. In this sense, a CubeSat or an ISS-
based investigation is considered a "suborbital class" investigation, even though it will
be placed into orbit. CubeSat or ISS-based "suborbital class" investigations are subject
to the same cost constraints to which traditional suborbital investigations are subject.
Proposals for Space Biology and Physical Sciences investigations, e.g., on the
International Space Station (ISS) are solicited through Appendix E.

ROSES-22 SoS-44
 (b) General Guidelines for Flight Proposals
ROSES awards support science investigations and/or technology development utilizing
payloads flown on suborbital-class platforms. Unless otherwise specified, flight
proposals, like all ROSES proposals, are for complete science investigations, including
development of any necessary hardware/instruments, collection of data and plans for
management and for reduction, analysis, and archiving of the data must be given in the
proposal. Although most awards are three or four years in duration, a five-year proposal
may be accepted to develop a completely new, highly meritorious investigation through
its first flight. Suborbital-class payloads may be recovered, refurbished, and reflown, in
order to complete an investigation. Please read the individual ROSES program element
for program specific requirements.
Budgets of flight proposals are expected to cover complete investigations, including
payload development and construction, instrument calibration, travel expenses to
support integration and launch activities, launch, data analysis, and publication of
results. The number of investigations that can be supported is limited and heavily
dependent on the funds available to the relevant research program. Note that NASA
does not carry reserves for Suborbital-Class Investigations and proposers should not
expect NASA to accommodate any cost overrun incurred by a particular investigation,
including the damage and/or loss of the payload owing to a suborbital-class platform
system failure. Therefore, failure to achieve the proposed goals within the proposed
time and budget could require descoping the initially proposed investigation, delaying it,
canceling a particular launch opportunity, or canceling the investigation altogether.
Unlike most other ROSES investigations where the proposing PI organization must
subcontract funding to non-Government investigators, funding for suborbital-class
investigations will sometimes be split into multiple awards. Please read the individual
ROSES program element and consult with the POC. When proposers would use a
NASA-provided traditional suborbital platform or a commercial suborbital platform
procured via NASA, the default is that the cost should not be included in the proposal
budget, but the budget justification must describe which NASA provided service is to be
used. When proposers elect to acquire or arrange for a commercial suborbital launch
vehicle, to ensure that cost is seen by NASA personnel but not peer reviewers, the cost
of the subcontract for the ride is to be included: 1) on the NSPIRES cover page budgets
in Section F line 5, 8, or 9, which are redacted, and 2) in the separately uploaded total
budget. Reminder: individual program elements may supersede the instructions given
here.
(i) Additional Guidelines for Suborbital Proposals
NASA provides several avenues for the provision of suborbital launch vehicle platforms,
namely:
• Sounding rockets provided by the NASA Sounding Rockets Program Office
(SRPO) at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Wallops Flight Facility
(NASA/GSFC/WFF)
• Balloons provided by the NASA Balloon Program Office (BPO) at the
NASA/GSFC/WFF
• New for ROSES-2022, commercial rocket-powered vehicles and high-altitude

ROSES-22 SoS-45
 balloons procured through the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate's
(STMD) Flight Opportunities Program (FOP)
NASA recognizes the unique capabilities and cost advantages of commercial suborbital
platforms and encourages proposers to consider proposing innovative investigations to
take advantage of them in order to increase the scientific yield and impact of the
proposed research. NASA expects to fly smaller and cheaper payloads that take
advantage of these capabilities at a higher cadence, provided that proposals are of
sufficient quality.
All suborbital proposals for NASA-provided suborbital platforms or NASA-procured
commercial suborbital platforms must be accompanied by a table of the key
performance parameters (e.g., payload mass, altitude, etc.) required for the
investigation (please refer to the solicitations for specific guidance). Proposers may
additionally specify a candidate launch vehicle, but NASA has the final authority in the
choice of which vehicle is to be used.
In general (e.g., for APRA, FORT, LCAS), proposers using NASA-provided traditional
suborbital flights or NASA-procured commercial suborbital flights are not to include the
cost in their budgets.
Proposers may continue to provide their own commercial suborbital launch vehicle see
Section VIII(c)iv.
(c) Points of Contact for Flight Platforms
NASA provides several avenues for procurement of suborbital launch vehicle services,
including: sounding rockets provided by the NASA Sounding Rockets Program Office
(SRPO) at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Wallops Flight Facility
(NASA/GSFC/WFF), balloons provided by the NASA Balloon Program Office (BPO) at
the NASA/GSFC/WFF, as well as other commercial suborbital launch vehicle services,
to include rocket-powered vehicles and high altitude balloons procured through the
NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate's (STMD) Flight Opportunities Program
(FOP).
SMD also solicits investigations as CubeSats and as small International Space Station
payloads. Regardless of which launch vehicle service is anticipated, all prospective PIs
are required to demonstrate the capacity, availability, and commitment of the suborbital-
class platform to support their investigation.
PIs are strongly urged to discuss prospective investigations with NASA program
personnel (see below) prior to submitting their proposal to ensure that probable
operational costs are properly anticipated.
(i) NASA-provided Sounding Rocket Services
Information on the capabilities of currently available sounding rocket vehicles is
available at https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/vehicles.html. Proposers are encouraged
to consider these capabilities in designing their investigations, but the Sounding
Rockets Program Office (SRPO) has the final authority in the choice of which vehicle is
to be used.

ROSES-22 SoS-46
The nominal U.S. launch sites for sounding rockets are White Sands Missile Range
(WSMR) in New Mexico, Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, Poker Flat Research Range
(PFRR) in Alaska, and Reagan Test Site (RTS) in the Kwajalein Atoll. The SRPO also
conducts launches from the established non-U.S. launch sites at Andoya, Norway
(Andoya Space); Kiruna, Sweden (Esrange); or Australia; subject to science community
requirements and the availability of SRPO operations funding to conduct the campaign.
Investigators proposing payloads to be flown on sounding rockets should answer the
program-specific questions on the NSPIRES proposal cover pages. This information is
needed by the SRPO to generate a rough order of magnitude cost estimate for the
operational requirements associated with a proposed investigation and is used for
planning purposes. The required information includes the envisioned vehicle type,
payload mass, trajectory requirements, launch site, telemetry requirements, attitude
control, or pointing requirements, and any plans for payload recovery and reuse.
Investigators proposing sounding rocket payloads should contact the SRPO to obtain
technical information related to SRPO launch vehicle capabilities, services, and the
latest planned campaign schedules. Questions concerning sounding rockets may be
addressed to:
Giovanni Rosanova
Sounding Rockets Program Office
Code 810
GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Wallops Island, VA 23337
Telephone: (757) 824-2202
Email: giovanni.rosanova@nasa.gov
(ii) NASA-provided Balloon Services
Information on the capabilities of current available balloon vehicles is available at
https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code820/operations.html and at
https://www.csbf.nasa.gov/balloons.html. Proposers are encouraged to consider these
capabilities in designing their investigations, but the Balloon Program Office (BPO) has
the final authority in the choice of which vehicles to be used.
The nominal U.S. launch sites for Balloons are Fort Sumner, New Mexico, and at the
Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility in Palestine, Texas. The BPO also conducts
launches from established non-U.S. launch sites at McMurdo, Antarctica; Alice Springs,
Australia; Kiruna, Sweden (Esrange); or Wanaka, New Zealand, subject to science
community requirements and the availability of BPO operations funding to conduct the
campaign.
Proposers needing investigation unique engineering, flight support systems, and/or
technical support services from NASA, such as the Wallops Arc-Second Pointing
System (WASP), should contact the BPO directly for an estimate of the Government
Furnished Equipment (GFE) cost of the desired support.

ROSES-22 SoS-47
Investigators proposing balloon payloads should contact the BPO to obtain technical
information related to BPO balloon capabilities, services, and the latest planned
campaign schedules.
Questions concerning balloons may be addressed to:
Debora Fairbrother
Balloon Program Office
Code 820, GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Wallops Island, VA 23337
Telephone: (757) 824-1453
Email: debora.a.fairbrother@nasa.gov
(iii) STMD Flight Opportunities Program Commercial Suborbital Launch Vehicles
In a significant change from prior years, proposers may avail themselves of STMD’s
Flight Opportunities Program (FOP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)
contracts to suborbital flight service providers. Information on commercial suborbital
flight vehicles, including general vehicle capabilities and contact information for some
vendors, is available at
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/flightopportunities/flightproviders. For
payloads to be flown on FOP-contracted commercial suborbital flights, the flight and all
other services provided by the commercial vendor will be procured directly by the FOP
rather than through the award. The payloads to be flown on FOP-contracted suborbital
flights must either be automated or remotely operated. ROSES does not solicit
proposals including human participants to fly on FOP-procured commercial suborbital
reusable launch vehicles. FOP is not currently offering aircraft parabolic flights to SMD
proposers through ROSES.
Investigators proposing FOP-contracted commercial suborbital flight service payloads
are strongly urged to discuss prospective investigations with operations personnel in the
Flight Opportunities Program and/or a potential vendor to ensure that probable
integration, safety and mission assurance, and operational costs are properly
anticipated.
Questions concerning FOP-contracted commercial suborbital launch vehicle
investigations may be addressed to:
Paul De León
Flight Opportunities Campaign Manager
Phone: (650) 604-0275
Email: paul.deleon@nasa.gov
(iv) Proposer-provided Commercial Suborbital Launch Vehicles
In addition to the description of the science investigation required of all proposals,
proposals that would use Proposer-Provided commercial Suborbital Launch Vehicles
(PPSLVs) must describe vehicle integration, launch and flight operations. Proposers
planning to use PPSLVs must identify a vehicle that will provide the technical
capabilities required to successfully conduct the proposed investigation.

ROSES-22 SoS-48
Proposals using PPSLVs as platforms must specify the technical requirements that their
investigation places on the vehicle. Proposals for investigations using PPSLVs as
platforms must provide a description of the instrument; its current status; a clear
assessment of what it will take to develop, modify, and integrate the instrument onto the
SLV; and include a plan to provide calibrated, research grade data.
SMD will conduct a PPSLV continuing investigation review (CIR) for all PPSLV-based
projects. The CIR will take place following maturity of the SLV-based project to the
equivalent of a Phase A concept study report or a systems requirement review. A
proposal for a PPSLV-based project must describe the proposed schedule for CIR and
the proposed funding required to reach CIR.
The CIR will include payload description, flight performance assessment, proposed
payload configuration and interfaces, mission success criteria, requirements matrix,
operational requirements, launch vehicle, and project schedule. Once the PPSLV-based
project reaches that level of design maturity, the CIR will be held at NASA
Headquarters. The SMD Associate Administrator (or designee) is the decision authority
for approval to proceed beyond the CIR. It is expected that PPSLV-based projects will
spend no more than approximately $100K prior to CIR approval.
Proposals for PPSLV-based investigations must be submitted to the appropriate
ROSES program element, depending on the science to be addressed by the proposed
investigation. The proposed PPSLV-based investigation must meet the constraints of
the program element to which it is being proposed. This explicitly includes any
constraints on the areas of science that are solicited, on the available funding, and on
the requirement for a complete science investigation.
Proposers who choose to provide their own commercial suborbital launch vehicles,
rather than using STMD's Flight Opportunities Program (FOP) contracts for commercial
suborbital platforms, must do the following:
• Inform the point of contact for the program element prior to submission and cc
SARA@nasa.gov,
• The cost to SMD for the flight and related services being performed for the
proposer must be included in the NSPIRES cover page budget in Section F, line
5, 8, or 9, which are redacted, and also in the separately uploaded "Total Budget"
PDF.
• The proposal document must describe the commercial flight services in adequate
detail for peer review and include a statement as to why the proposer chose that
launch, how it satisfies their requirements, e.g., as opposed to FOP.
Unless otherwise specified in a program element, in addition to the normal evaluation
factors specified in Section V(a) and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, evaluation of
the intrinsic merit of SLV-based proposals shall include the following additional factors:
• The likelihood that the proposed vehicle will be available at the proposed time for
flight and that it will be capable of providing the required technical capabilities;
• The feasibility of the proposed technical investigation, including the concept for
conduct of the experiment during the suborbital flight and the plans for calibrating
and analyzing the data obtained to accomplish the proposed science objectives;
and

ROSES-22 SoS-49
 • The quality of the plans for completing the preliminary design prior to the
investigation confirmation review.
The evaluation of cost reasonableness of a proposal shall include a pre-selection
assessment, by NASA personnel, of the affordability of the proposed vehicle vendor
cost for the flight and other required services compared to available budget.
(v) Research Investigations Utilizing the International Space Station
NASA has determined that there may be payload opportunities for small, suborbital-
class space and Earth science research investigations, including both science and
technology development, that utilize the International Space Station (ISS). Available
external attach points include both zenith and nadir pointing locations and internal
attach points include nadir pointing locations. NASA has regular opportunities to launch
external and pressurized (internal) cargo for use in the Window Observational Research
Facility. Opportunities and constraints for ISS attached payloads may be found at:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Facility.htm
l?#id=349 and https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/i/iss-worf.
Proposals seeking use of the ISS must take advantage of the Station’s unique
capabilities. Proposals must include a clear and convincing scientific and/or technical
argument that use of the ISS is required to produce the needed results in ways that
could not be accomplished through the use of other platforms. Investigations that make
use of the ISS may be proposed for periods of performance of up to five years.
Proposers interested in using the ISS to conduct an Earth or space science
investigation must identify a specific accommodation location that can provide the
technical capabilities required to conduct the proposed investigation. The proposal must
include a letter of feasibility from the ISS Research Integration Office that must contain:
(1) a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of the proposed concept and
requirements for access to and accommodation on the Space Station, (2) identification
of any significant challenges or conditional provisions for access and accommodation,
and (3) a description of the level of technical interchange or negotiation required to
mature the proposed concept for access and accommodation on ISS. Transportation
and accommodation will be provided by NASA at no cost to the proposed research
investigation, and costs for transportation to and accommodation on the ISS should not
be included in the proposed budget. However, the PI's cost for all accommodation,
safety, and other reviews that are conducted and supported by the PI must be included
in the PI's proposed investigation budget. It can take the ISS Research Integration
Office several weeks to prepare the letter of feasibility.
In addition to a description of the instrument and its current status proposals for utilizing
the ISS must provide a clear assessment of what it will take to develop, modify, and
integrate the instrument onto the ISS and include a plan to provide calibrated, research
grade data. Proposals must be for complete investigations that include payload
development, construction, ISS integration, launch and flight operations, data analysis,
and publication of results.

ROSES-22 SoS-50
The ISS Research Integration Office will provide integration services, launch services,
on-orbit operations and services, as well as safety and mission assurance reviews for
all ISS investigations.
There is no single due date for investigations for the ISS; rather, proposals must be
submitted to the appropriate ROSES program element depending upon the science
addressed by the proposed investigation. The proposed investigation must meet the
constraints of the program element to which it is being proposed. This explicitly includes
any constraints on the areas of science that are solicited, on the available funding, and
on the requirement for a complete science investigation.
Investigations proposed for the ISS will be approved for the first year only. During the
first year, in addition to beginning the proposed investigation, a detailed transportation
and accommodation study will be undertaken by the ISS Program's Research Office
with the ISS Research Integration Office at no cost to the proposer. Approval for
continued funding beyond the first year will be contingent on the ISS Program making a
firm commitment for transportation and accommodation on the ISS that is compatible
with the requirements of the proposed investigation.
Investigators proposing ISS payloads are required to contact the ISS Research
Integration Office to begin the technical discussion needed in order to start the ISS
technical requirements interface and resource utilization feasibility and accommodation
assessment. It is only after such feasibility assessment is performed by the ISS
Research Integration Office that a signed feasibility letter will be issued to the
investigator. The signed ISS feasibility letter must be submitted with any proposal
requesting the use of ISS as a science platform to perform any experiment.
All proposals will be evaluated with respect to the criteria specified in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. In addition to the factors specified in the Guidebook, by
default, the intrinsic merit of an ISS proposal shall include:
• The extent that the advantages (e.g., scientific, technical, or cost) of the
International Space Station’s capabilities and location will be utilized; and
• The feasibility of the proposed technical investigation includes the on-orbit
operations concept and the plans for calibrating and analyzing the data obtained
to accomplish the proposed science objectives.
External accommodation locations for payloads include Express Logistics Carriers
(ELCs), the Japanese Experiment Module-Exposed Facility (JEM-EF), and the
Columbus Orbiting Facility-Exposed Facility (COF-EF). Internal accommodations are
also available in the pressurized environment via the Window Observational Research
Facility (WORF). More detailed information can be found at
www.nasa.gov/stationfacilities.
For research investigations that would use the International Space Station, in addition to
any periodic project reviews or certifications specified in individual program elements
and award terms and conditions, please note: ISS payloads must be certified for
transportation and use in a human-tended vehicle. Payloads must obtain ISS Safety
certification, meet ISS to payload interface requirements, complete verifications, and
develop a feasible ops plan, including crew procedural inputs. Unpressurized external
payloads typically begin integration efforts with the ISS 24-36 months before launch

ROSES-22 SoS-51
(depending on the experience of the payload developer) and are delivered for
integration into the launch vehicle approximately two months before launch. Pressurized
payloads for the WORF typically begin integration efforts with the ISS 9-12 months
before launch and are delivered for packing and integration into the launch vehicle
approximately four months before launch.
For ISS Program accommodation support please email both of these points of contact
from the ISS Program's Research Office:

Name email
Steve Huning steven.w.huning@nasa.gov
Jennifer Scott Williams jennifer.j.scottwilliams@nasa.gov

(vi) Use of Short Duration Orbital Platforms, including CubeSats

Short duration (<2 years, in orbit) orbital platforms, including any ISS mounted payload
that is retrievable and returned to Earth, ISS CubeSat deployments, and CubeSats,
generally have historically been used as teaching tools and technology demonstrators,
and offer newly developed capabilities for the conduct of NASA scientific research and
technology advancement. 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), twelve (2x2x3
form factor e.g., D.3 APRA) and, in some cases, even larger. For example, B.11 H-
FORT allows CubeSats up to 27U, with >12U dispensed from an ESPA ring. Proposers
contemplating >6U are strongly encouraged to communicate with the point of contact for
the ROSES program element to which they plan to propose to verify the availability of
an appropriate dispenser and that costs can be accommodated by the program.
Proposals for science investigations utilizing short duration orbital platforms, such as
CubeSats, must be for complete investigations, and must describe a complete science
investigation, including CubeSat construction, payload integration and test, launch
vehicle integration, communications, mission operations, data analysis, and publication
of results.
CubeSats are typically launched as secondary payloads to low-Earth orbit or from the
International Space Station. Further, additional commercial opportunities to leave Earth
orbit as a secondary payload may arise on future mission launches. The CubeSat
Launch Initiative (CSLI) program has narrowed eligibility to investigations performed by
students without any governmental involvement. Proposers who may be eligible for
CSLI may refer to Cubesat Launch Initiative Announcement "Partnership" Opportunity
web page and inquire of the POCs listed at the end of this section, but most proposers
to ROSES who want to avail themselves of NASA-provided rides will use the Launch
Services Program (LSP).
NASA’s Launch Services Program, or LSP, facilitates the launch of uncrewed rockets
delivering science and robotic missions from nanosats to flagship level primary
payloads. LSP’s focus is bringing together those with a payload needing a ride to space
with the appropriate launch vehicle provider, based on cost, schedule, and technical
capabilities. LSP is able to utilize a variety of contracting and partnership opportunities
to find the appropriate launch opportunity for the PI. Additional information including

ROSES-22 SoS-52
performance quotes for orbits/destinations, mission integration inquiries, and standard
services may be obtained from the LSP point of contact below. At an appropriate time
after selection, SMD will provide mission specific direction to the Launch Services
Office. This direction will request the project be considered for manifest on a launch
vehicle going to an appropriate orbit via LSP contracting mechanisms.
As a result of their secondary status, CubeSats are placed into orbits that are dictated
by the primary payload. Therefore, in any given year a finite number of specific orbits
(e.g., inclinations and altitudes) will be available for CubeSats, and the types of orbits
available will vary from year to year. Thus, CubeSat-based missions requiring very
specific orbital parameters may be at a disadvantage for securing a timely launch.
Proposals should include the CubeSat Mission Parameters Table (below) and clearly
indicate both the required and the acceptable range of orbital parameters needed to
meet mission objectives. NASA's CubeSats are deployed from the ISS via the
NanoRacks CubeSat dispenser or from an expendable launch vehicle via a dispenser
on contract at the time of manifesting. Please indicate whether or not a Space Station
launch is acceptable.
CubeSats must be compliant with Launch Services Program, Program-Level Dispenser
and CubeSat Requirements Document (LSP-Req-317.01) and the
CubeSat Mission Parameters
400 km @
51.6 degree Desired
Mission Cube Acceptable incl. Ready
Mass Desired Orbit Mission
Name Size Orbit Range Date
Acceptable – Life
Yes or No
Altitude

Inclination

Compliance and Reference Documents referenced therein. That document may be

found at: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/627972main_LSP-REQ-317_01A.pdf
Unless otherwise stated, awards made in response to proposals to ROSES do not fall
under NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.5. Instead, they fall under NASA
Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.8, NASA Research and Technology Program and
Project Management Requirements, appropriately tailored depending on the project
size, complexity, and scope.
Proposals for CubeSat investigations should note the following:
• The cost of launch for a single,  3U, spacecraft to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) will be
covered under the Launch Services Program (LSP) at no cost to the investigation.
For this standard case, proposers should mention (e.g., in the budget justification)
that only the standard LSP-provided launch services are needed. Proposers
should not include such launch service charges in the budgets of a ROSES
proposal.
• Proposals to go beyond LEO, utilize more than one spacecraft, or involve a
CubeSat >3U must contact LSP representatives (see below) to obtain a cost

ROSES-22 SoS-53
 estimate. Proposals shall state explicitly in the budget justification that there are
additional costs for launch within the proposed budget and give those costs in the
NSPIRES cover page budget and the separately uploaded Total Budget file, see
(b) General Guidelines for Flight Proposals above. However, such quoted launch
services costs are not in the hands of the proposing organization and overhead
must not be charged on those costs.
• The proposed CubeSat investigation must meet the constraints of the program
element to which it is being proposed. This explicitly includes any constraints on
the areas of science that are solicited, on the available funding, and on the
requirement for a complete science investigation.
• In addition to the factors specified in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, the
proposal will be evaluated against any additional (e.g., flight-related) factors called
out in the program element to which it is being proposed.
• Proposals for investigations using CubeSats must satisfy the constraints for a
standard CubeSat and the NASA CubeSat deployer.
• Please note that 12U is the maximum size for Nanoracks ISS and Cygnus
CubeSat deployments, see https://nanoracks.com/satellite-deployment/.
• Proposals must specify any constraints placed on the required orbit and orbital
lifetime. The likely availability of NASA launches satisfying any constraints in the
time period contemplated will be a consideration for the ROSES evaluation. The
less stringent the orbital constraints, the more probable it will be that NASA can
manifest the CubeSat investigation for launch.
• Proposals must demonstrate knowledge of the requirements for limiting orbital
debris and must address how the mission will meet the requirements of
NPR 8715.6 for Limiting Orbital Debris.
• Proposals must address the approach to downlink and uplink communications
licensing, frequency band selection, and frequency coordination for operations
between space and ground within the RF spectrum.
• All costs for preparing, testing, and delivering the CubeSat for launch must be
included in the proposal.
• Launch service charges should be included in the proposal cost request only if
they exceed the normal LSP-provided launch services, as described above or if
the proposer procures their own launch service.
• Proposals for short duration orbital experiments other than CubeSats must include
provisions for access to space as part of the proposal.
Investigators proposing CubeSats are strongly urged to discuss prospective
investigations with personnel listed below regarding constraints, launch opportunities,
and other technical matters. For further information on SMD CubeSats, please contact:
Florence Tan
Phone: (202) 358-0058
Email: florence.w.tan@nasa.gov and

ROSES-22 SoS-54
For further information on LSP and CSLI, please contact:
Norman Phelps,
Launch Services Program Mission Manager,
Phone: 321-698-5707
Email: norman.l.phelps@nasa.gov.

ROSES-22 SoS-55
 TABLE 1: CHECKLIST FOR ROSES-2022 PROPOSALS
This list does not apply to Step-1 proposals. Many items on this checklist may be
superseded by the program element and, if there is a difference, the text in the
program element takes precedence. The instructions here supersede the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers; if there is a difference, see Section I(g).
NSPIRES cover pages: This table lists the few aspects that most commonly cause
difficulties to proposers. There are many required parts to the cover pages, see the
NSPIRES online help for guidance.
Section or topic Requirements, caveats, citations, notes, link for more information
Team All investigators must indicate participation via NSPIRES, except
proposals submitted via Grants.gov. If any team member doesn't
confirm their participation the AOR will get an error that prevents
submission.
Team Paid team members may not be collaborators, they should be
given a role permitted to receive funds, such as Co-I.
Team A critical partner with a sustained, continuing role is a Co-I, not a
collaborator, even if unpaid. See also FAQ #21.
Project Project Summary (abstract) must be in the 4000-character text
Summary box in the NSPIRES cover pages, not the Science/Technical/
Management section of the proposal (except DAPR proposals).
Budget List all costs. Include all salary and indirect costs in the NSPIRES
cover page budgets but not in the proposal PDF, see Section
IV.(b)iii.
Submission The author must "release" the proposal and the AOR must
"submit" prior to the due date.
Other There are questions that must be answered and there may be
other required content, e.g., some program elements collect a
relevance statement via the cover page, see I(g).
Proposal document
Table of First component of proposal. One page at most and optional.
contents
Scientific/ Second component and the main part of the proposal. The
Technical/ sequence for science content here is recommended; proposers
Management may order the elements as they prefer.
(S/T/M) Section
Length Typically, 15 pages (except for a Step-1 proposal) and more may
restriction be permitted for some (e.g., Flight) programs and less for others
(e.g., B.12 HDEE, F.2 TWSC). Please read the program element
and refer to the summary table of key information.
Format 8.5" x 11.0" page size
Format Single spaced, single column text (unless otherwise specified).
Format One-inch margins on all four sides. No reviewable content in
margins.
Format No more than 5.5 lines per vertical inch

ROSES-22 SoS-56
 Table 1 Continued: Checklist for ROSES-2022 Proposals
Text No more than 15 characters per horizontal inch, including spaces.
Format This is typically consistent with a font size of 12.
Captions As above (font size 12 etc.). Text necessary for the proposal may
Format not be solely in figures, tables, or their captions.
Figure Text and content on/in figures must be easily legible without
Format magnification.
Table Text and content on/in Tables must be easily legible without
Format magnification.
Content Discuss objectives and their significance.
Content Discuss perceived impact of the work.
Content Discuss relevance of the work to the program element. See V(a)
Content Explain the technical approach and methodology.
Content Discuss potential sources of uncertainty
Content Present mitigation strategy or alternate approach given obstacles
Content Discuss roles of all team members so it’s clear what they are doing
Content Present a work plan, with milestones, management structure
Content Present a data sharing and/or archiving plan in the S/T/M section
only if it is required by program element, see Section II.(c).
Special Provide other special requirements of program element, e.g.,
Content special statements for participating scientists, team leads, etc.
References: Third component of proposal
Length No page limit
Excluded No references to documents unavailable to reviewers. See FAQ19
Data Management Plan (DMP) fourth component of proposal. Location differs from
that given in Guidebook. See Section II(c) for exceptions.
Length 2 pages
Required Unless otherwise stated, a DMP or explanation of why it is not
needed must be provided in this section.
Content See Section II(c) and the DMP FAQ for content and templates.
Biographical Sketches/Curriculum Vitae (CVs): fifth component of proposal
Required For a PI and each Co-I.
Length CV for a PI (or Science PI) - up to two pages, unless otherwise
restriction specified.
Length
CVs for anyone other than a PI are limited to one page
restriction
Not CVs for collaborators are typically not needed, but may be
required included
Table of Personnel and Work Effort: This is the sixth component of the proposal.
Location differs from that given in Guidebook. See Section IV(b)iii
Required Names and/or titles of all personnel to perform the proposed effort
Required Planned work commitment (e.g., in weeks, months etc.) to be
funded by NASA see example in Section IV(b)iii.

ROSES-22 SoS-57
 Table 1 Continued: Checklist for ROSES-2022 Proposals
Required Planned work commitment (e.g., in weeks, months etc.) that will
not be funded by NASA, if any. See example in Section IV(b)iii.
Note This table is outside of the budget Section. Time commitment
included here that is not funded by NASA is not considered cost
sharing, as defined in 2 CFR § 200.29.
General Where names are not known, include the position, such as
postdoctoral fellow or technician.
Exception Note requirements for anonymity in DAPR programs.
Current and Pending Support: seventh component of the proposal, not page limited.
Required Required for the PI and funded participants who would devote
>10% of their time in any given year to the proposed work.
Required For each current project or pending proposal that would account
for >10% of the person's time, list the level of effort for that team
member (only) per year. Award $ values are not requested.
Excluded Do not include Current and Pending for collaborators.
Discouraged Current and Pending for students is discouraged.
Discouraged Current and Pending for Foreign Co-Is is discouraged.
Excluded Do not self-reference this proposal in the current and pending
Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support, Feasibility and Endorsement, the
eighth component of the proposal.
General Statements of Commitment by team members have been
replaced by an indication of participation via the NSPIRES web
interface.
Statements of Statements of Commitment must be included for Grants.gov
Commitment proposals, since web confirmation of team member participation
is not possible via Grants.gov.
Letter of In general, not permitted. Special cases include 1) Foreign Co-Is
Endorsement must include letters of endorsement from their government
– only agency or funding/sponsoring institution in their country and 2)
permitted in Letters from commercial vendor are required for proposals for
special investigations using SLVs not contracted by the Flight
cases. Opportunities Program. See Section VIII(c)iii.
Letter of See Section IV(e) for when a letter of resource support is
Resource needed from a necessary facility or resource confirming that it is
Support available for the proposed use during the proposed period.
Letter of A letter of feasibility from the NASA Space Station Payload
feasibility Office must be included with proposals to use ISS.
Letter of In general, letters of affirmation are not permitted for normal
affirmation research proposals, but letters from the community may be
included only where explicitly allowed, e.g., for C.17 PSEF, and
F.2 TWSC.

ROSES-22 SoS-58
 Table 1 Continued: Checklist for ROSES-2022 Proposals
Budget: The ninth component of the proposal, no page limit overall.
Budget Narrative (a.k.a. Budget Justification)
General Please explain in words what is being purchased and why it is
reasonable. See the Guidebook for Proposers
Required Budget Narrative: justify each proposed component of cost,
including subcontracts/subawards, consultants, other direct
costs (including travel), and facilities and equipment. Give the
"basis of estimate;" quotes need not be provided, but the
proposal should indicate that the cost was based upon a quote,
prior experience, etc.
Excluded Do not include any values for salary, fringe, or overhead.
Optional Proposers need not specify anticipated award type (i.e., grant
vs. contract), see Section II(a)
Budget Details (a.k.a. Detailed Budget)
Strongly Detailed budget, itemizing expenses.
Recommended
Strongly Separate detailed budget from each subaward organization.
Recommended
Excluded Do not include any $ or % values for salary, fringe, or overhead
in this section which is peer reviewed. See the FAQ#8.
Facilities and Equipment: The tenth component of the proposal, no page limit.
Length As needed
Excluded May not include scientific or technical information beyond a
content description of the facilities and equipment, i.e., don't add here
what should be in the page-limited scientific/technical Section.
PDF Appendices Separate from the main proposal document
"Total" Budget Document (separate PDF file attached as type "Total Budget").
Required Separately uploaded "Total" Budget PDF file see Section
IV(b)(iii).
HEC Appendix Document (separate PDF file attached as "Appendix")
Required for If the Program Specific Data Question on the use of NASA-
High-End provided HEC was answered in the affirmative, an appendix
Computing document must be provided. See Section I(e) for information.
Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized (separate PDF file attached as
document type "Appendix")
Selectively Required only program elements employing Dual-Anonymous
required Peer Review (DAPR). Please note that the anonymization
requirement for DAPR programs changes some of the
components of this table, e.g., CVs, Table of Work Effort,
Current and Pending, etc. See Section IV(b)i for more
information.

ROSES-22 SoS-59
 ROSES 2022
TABLE 2: SOLICITED RESEARCH PROGRAMS
(In (Step-2) Proposal Due Date Order) [1]

NOI or Step- (Step-2)

Appendix Program 1 Due Date Proposal Due
[2] Date
Earth Science Research Program
A.1 N/A N/A
Overview
Heliophysics Research Program
B.1 N/A N/A
Overview
Planetary Science Research Program
C.1 N/A N/A
Overview
Astrophysics Research Program
D.1 N/A N/A
Overview
Biological and Physical Sciences
E.1 N/A N/A
Division Research Overview
F.1 Cross Division Research Overview N/A N/A
Earth System Science for Building
A.52 04/07/2022 05/17/2022
Coastal Resilience
D.2 Astrophysics Data Analysis 04/01/2022 05/19/2022
A.8 Physical Oceanography 04/22/2022 05/25/2022
F.3 Exoplanets Research 03/31/2022 05/26/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
ECOSTRESS Science and
A.33 05/04/2022 06/01/2022
Applications Team
Making Earth System Data Records for
A.27 04/26/2022 06/02/2022
Use in Research Environments
Planetary Science Enabling 04/08/2022 06/03/2022
C.17
Facilities (Step-1) (Step-2)
Space Weather Science Application 04/12/2022 06/14/2022
B.7
Research-to-Operations-to-Research (Step-1) (Step-2)
A.23 Earth Surface and Interior 04/13/2022 06/15/2022
Development and Advancement of 04/13/2022 06/15/2022
C.19
Lunar Instrumentation (Step-1) (Step-2)
Yearly Opportunities for Research in 04/21/2022 06/16/2022
C.21
Planetary Defense (Step-1) (Step-2)
Earth Science Applications:
A.36 05/05/2022 06/17/2022
Agriculture
Economic, Social, and Policy
F.17 Analyses of Orbital Debris and N/A 06/17/2022
Space Sustainability
Heliophysics Flight Opportunities for
B.11 N/A 06/22/2022
Research and Technology
C.10 Cassini Data Analysis Program 05/05/2022 07/07/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
A.2 Land Cover/Land Use Change 04/14/2022 07/14/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Maturation of Instruments for Solar 04/06/2022 07/14/2022
C.13
System Exploration (Step-1) (Step-2)
Earth Science U.S. Participating
A.26 05/20/2022 07/19/2022
Investigator
C.15 Planetary Protection Research 06/21/2022 07/20/2022
Commercial Smallsat Data
A.43 Acquisition New Vendor Onramp 05/19/2022 07/21/2022
Evaluation
X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy
D.17 N/A 07/21/2022
Mission Guest Scientist Program
A.46 Advanced Component Technology 06/10/2022 07/26/2022
B.4 Heliophysics Guest Investigators-Open 05/24/2022 08/09/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Martian Moons Exploration 06/16/2022
C.24 (Mandatory 08/16/2022
Participating Scientist Program NOI)
Aura Science Team and Atmospheric
A.18 Composition Modeling and Analysis N/A 08/19/2022
Program
Heliophysics Technology and
B.8 N/A 08/31/2022
Instrument Development for Science
Heliophysics Flight Opportunities
B.10 N/A 09/01/2022
Studies
09/14/2022
D.11 NICER General Observer – Cycle 5 N/A (Phase-1 via
ARK RPS)
A.20 Terrestrial Hydrology 08/11/2022 09/15/2022
E.6 Fundamental Physics 07/19/2022 09/16/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Space Weather Centers of 06/21/2022 09/20/2022
B.22
Excellence (Step-1) (Step-2)

Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory 09/22/2022

D.5 N/A (Phase-1 via
General Investigator – Cycle 19 ARK RPS)
Airborne and Satellite Investigation of
A.19 09/07/2022 10/04/2022
Asian Air Quality
A.13 Ocean Vector Winds Science Team 09/08/2022 10/06/2022
A.32 Studies with ICESat-2 09/14/2022 10/12/2022
Heliophysics Citizen Science 08/24/2022 10/13/2022
B.21
Investigations (Step-1) (Step-2)
 Heliophysics Early Career Investigator 07/28/2022 10/18/2022
B.14
Program (Step-1) (Step-2)
Earth Science Research from
A.29 Operational Geostationary Satellite 08/02/2022 10/19/2022
Systems
Research Pathfinder for Beyond
E.11 Low Earth Orbit Space Biology 09/01/2022 10/27/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Investigations
Carbon Monitoring System: Continuing
A.6 08/02/2022 10/28/2022
Prototype Product Development
09/06/2022
C.11 Discovery Data Analysis (Mandatory 11/01/2022
NOI)

A.22 Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics 09/16/2022 11/02/2022

C.7 New Frontiers Data Analysis Program 09/07/2022 11/03/2022

(Step-1) (Step-2)
Theoretical and Computational
D.12 10/04/2022 11/04/2022
Astrophysics Networks
B.17 Interdisciplinary Science for Eclipse 09/09/2022 11/08/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
C.9 Mars Data Analysis 09/07/2022 11/15/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Interdisciplinary Research in Earth
A.28 10/14/2022 11/23/2022
Science
B.5 Living with a Star Science 09/08/2022 11/23/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Analog Activities to Support Artemis
C.23 N/A 12/06/2022
Lunar Operations
C.18 Planetary Science Early Career Award N/A 12/08/2022
F.14 Transform to Open Science Training 11/10/2022 12/08/2022
D.3 Astrophysics Research and Analysis 11/04/2022 12/15/2022
(Mandatory NOI)
11/04/2022
D.7 Strategic Astrophysics Technology (Mandatory 12/15/2022
NOI)
Nancy Grace Roman Technology
D.8 Fellowships for Early Career See D.3 or D.7
Researchers
Precursor Science Investigations for 11/01/2022 12/16/2022
C.27
Europa (Step-1) (Step-2)
Payloads and Research
F.10 Investigations on the Surface of the 10/24/2022 12/20/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Moon
Interdisciplinary Consortia for 09/15/2022 01/10/2023
C.20
Astrobiology Research (Step-1) (Step-2)
E.8 Physical Sciences Informatics 10/31/2022 01/10/2023
Scoping Studies for the Next Terrestrial
A.4 10/25/2022 01/11/2023
Ecology Field Campaign
Multidomain Reusable Artificial 11/09/2022
F.19 01/13/2023
Intelligence Tools (Mandatory NOI)
Land-Cover/Land-Use Change SARI
A.55 12/01/2022 01/18/2023
Synthesis
Heliophysics Artificial
B.16 Intelligence/Machine Learning-Ready 10/28/2022 01/18/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Data
Heliophysics Low Cost Access to 11/17/2022
B.9 01/19/2023
Space (Mandatory NOI)
Apollo Next Generation Sample 10/17/2022 01/19/2023
C.26
Analysis Program (Step-1) (Step-2)
Citizen Science Seed Funding
F.9 11/22/2022 01/24/2023
Program
01/26/2023
D.9 NuSTAR General Observer – Cycle 9 N/A (Phase-1 via
ARK RPS)

F.4 Habitable Worlds 11/08/2022 02/03/2023

(Step-1) (Step-2)
02/16/2023
D.6 Fermi General Investigator – Cycle 16 N/A (Phase-1 via
ARK RPS)
Future Investigators in NASA Earth
F.5 N/A 02/21/2023
and Space Science and Technology
C.8 Lunar Data Analysis 12/01/2022 02/23/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Heliophysics Theory, Modeling and 12/15/2022 03/14/2023
B.3
Simulations (Step-1) (Step-2)

D.13 Astrophysics Pioneers 01/27/2023 03/16/2023

(Mandatory NOI)
D.15 Lisa Preparatory Science 01/20/2023 03/16/2023
(Mandatory NOI)
Nancy Grace Roman Space
D.14 Telescope Research and Support 01/20/2023 03/21/2023
Participation Opportunities
Commercial Smallsat Data Scientific 01/18/2023 03/23/2023
A.44
Analysis (Step-1) (Step-2)
Astrophysics Decadal Survey 01/20/2023
D.16 03/24/2023
Precursor Science (Mandatory NOI)
Ultraviolet Transient Astronomy
D.19 Satellite Participating Scientists 01/23/2023 03/31/2023
Program
 Earth Science Applications:
A.40 03/14/2023 04/14/2023
Ecological Conservation
04/14/2023
D.10 TESS General Investigator – Cycle 6 N/A (Phase-1 via
ARK RPS)

C.25 Artemis III Geology Team 02/24/2023 04/25/2023

(Step-1) (Step-2)

Extreme Precision Radial Velocity 02/16/2023 04/26/2023

D.18
Foundation Science (Step-1) (Step-2)

A.54 Earth Venture Suborbital-4 02/28/2023 04/27/2023

(Step-1) (Step-2)
Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean
A.30 Ecosystem (PACE) Mission 03/07/2023 05/05/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Validation

E.9 Space Biology Research 02/22/2023 05/17/2023

(Step-1) (Step-2)

Rapid Response and Novel Research No Due Date

A.24 N/A
in Earth Science [3]
Applications-Oriented
No Due Date
A.51 Augmentations for Research and N/A
[3]
Analysis
Technology Development for
No Due Date By invitation
A.53 Support of Wildfire Science and
[3](Step-1) only (Step-2)
Disaster Mitigation
Heliophysics Data Environment No Due Date
B.12 N/A
Enhancements [3]
Heliophysics Innovation in Technology No Due Date
B.15 N/A
and Science [3]
No Due Date
B.20 Heliophysics Tools and Methods N/A
[3]
No Due Date
C.2 Emerging Worlds N/A
[3]
No Due Date
C.3 Solar System Workings N/A
[3]
Planetary Data Archiving and No Due Date
C.4 N/A
Restoration [3]
No Due Date
C.5 Exobiology N/A
[3]
No Due Date
C.6 Solar System Observations N/A
[3]
 Planetary Instrument Concepts for the
No Due Date
C.12 Advancement of Solar System N/A
[3]
Observations
Laboratory Analysis of Returned No Due Date
C.16 N/A
Samples [3]
Supplemental Open Source No Due Date
F.8 N/A
Software Awards [3]
No Due Date
F.15 High Priority Open-Source Science N/A
[3]
No Due Date
F.18 NASA Innovation Corps N/A
[3]
Any Time
Topical Workshops, Symposia, and
F.2 N/A Through May
Conferences 12, 2023
A.3 Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Not Solicited This Year
A.5 Carbon Cycle Science Not Solicited This Year
A.7 Biodiversity Not Solicited This Year
A.9 Ocean Salinity Science Team Not Solicited This Year
A.10 Sea Level Change Science Team Not Solicited This Year
Surface Water and Ocean Topography
A.11 Not Solicited This Year
(SWOT) Science Team
Ocean Surface Topography Science
A.12 Not Solicited This Year
Team
A.14 Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction Not Solicited This Year
A.15 Cryospheric Science Not Solicited This Year
Atmospheric Composition: Upper
A.16 Atmospheric Composition Not Solicited This Year
Observations
Atmospheric Composition: Radiation
A.17 Not Solicited This Year
Sciences Program
A.21 SMAP Mission Science Team Not Solicited This Year
Airborne Instrument Technology
A.25 Not Solicited This Year
Transition
The Science of Terra, Aqua, and
A.31 Not Solicited This Year
Suomi-NPP
New (Early Career) Investigator
A.34 Not Solicited This Year
Program in Earth Science
Earth Science Applications: Water
A.35 Not Solicited This Year
Resources
A.37 SERVIR Applied Sciences Team Not Solicited This Year
Earth Science Applications: Disaster
A.38 Not Solicited This Year
Risk Reduction and Resilience
Earth Science Applications: Health and
A.39 Not Solicited This Year
Air Quality
 Advancing Collaborative Connections
A.41 Not Solicited This Year
for Earth System Science
Citizen Science for Earth Systems
A.42 Not Solicited This Year
Programs
A.45 Instrument Incubator Program Not Solicited This Year
In-space Validation of Earth Science
A.47 Not Solicited This Year
Technologies
Sustainable Land Imaging –
A.48 Not Solicited This Year
Technology
Decadal Survey Incubation Study
A.49 Not Solicited This Year
Teams
Advanced Information Systems
A.50 Not Solicited This Year
Technology
B.2 Heliophysics Supporting Research Not Solicited This Year
B.6 Living with a Star Strategic Capabilities Not Solicited This Year
Heliophysics U.S. Participating
B.13 Not Solicited This Year
Investigator
B.18 Living With a Star Tools and Methods Not Solicited This Year
Heliophysics Living with a Star
B.19 Not Solicited This Year
Infrastructure
Planetary Science and Technology
C.14 Not Solicited This Year
Through Analog Research
Concepts for Ocean Worlds Life
C.22 Not Solicited This Year
Detection Technology
D.4 Astrophysics Theory Not Solicited This Year
E.2 Biophysics Not Solicited This Year
E.3 Complex Fluids Not Solicited This Year
E.4 Combustion Science Not Solicited This Year
E.5 Fluid Physics Not Solicited This Year
E.7 Materials Science Not Solicited This Year
E.10 Space Biology: Animal Research Not Solicited This Year
F.6 Science Activation Program Integration Not Solicited This Year
Support for Open-Source Tools,
F.7 Not Solicited This Year
Frameworks, and Libraries
Stand Alone Location Agnostic
Payloads and Research
F.11 Not Solicited This Year
Investigations on the Surface of the
Moon
F.12 Artemis Deployed Instruments Program Not Solicited This Year
Lunar Terrain Vehicle Instruments
F.13 Not Solicited This Year
Program
Supplement for Scientific Software
F.16 Not Solicited This Year
Platforms
Notes:
[1] Amended due dates and new program elements will be indicated with bold red text
as ROSES-2022 is amended through the year.
[2] See Sections IV(b)(vi) and IV(b)(vii) of the Summary of Solicitation for a discussion
of Notice of Intent (NOI) vs. a Step-1 proposal. If NOIs are requested, a due date is
provided in the table. If NOIs are required by a program in order to be able to submit
a proposal, it will be indicated on this table with "(mandatory)". If NOIs are replaced
by a Step-1 proposal, the table entry will say “(Step-1)”.
[3] Proposals may be submitted to this program at any up to March 29, 2023, when it is
anticipated that ROSES-2023 will be open. Proposers should carefully read the
solicitation for information about review schedule and possible restrictions on, for
example, proposal resubmissions.
 ROSES 2022
TABLE 3: SOLICITED RESEARCH PROGRAMS
(In Order of Appendices A-F) [1]

NOI or Step- (Step-2)

Appendix Program 1 Due Date Proposal
[2] Due Date
Earth Science Research Program
A.1 N/A N/A
Overview
A.2 Land Cover/Land Use Change 04/14/2022 07/14/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
A.3 Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Not Solicited This Year
Scoping Studies for the Next Terrestrial
A.4 10/25/2022 01/11/2023
Ecology Field Campaign
A.5 Carbon Cycle Science Not Solicited This Year
Carbon Monitoring System: Continuing
A.6 08/02/2022 10/28/2022
Prototype Product Development
A.7 Biodiversity Not Solicited This Year
A.8 Physical Oceanography 04/22/2022 05/25/2022
A.9 Ocean Salinity Science Team Not Solicited This Year
A.10 Sea Level Change Science Team Not Solicited This Year
Surface Water and Ocean Topography
A.11 Not Solicited This Year
(SWOT) Science Team
Ocean Surface Topography Science
A.12 Not Solicited This Year
Team
A.13 Ocean Vector Winds Science Team 09/08/2022 10/06/2022
A.14 Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction Not Solicited This Year
A.15 Cryospheric Science Not Solicited This Year
Atmospheric Composition: Upper
A.16 Not Solicited This Year
Atmospheric Composition Observations
Atmospheric Composition: Radiation
A.17 Not Solicited This Year
Sciences Program
Aura Science Team and Atmospheric
A.18 Composition Modeling and Analysis N/A 08/19/2022
Program
Airborne and Satellite Investigation of
A.19 09/07/2022 10/04/2022
Asian Air Quality
A.20 Terrestrial Hydrology 08/11/2022 09/15/2022
A.21 SMAP Mission Science Team Not Solicited This Year
A.22 Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics 09/16/2022 11/02/2022
A.23 Earth Surface and Interior 04/13/2022 06/15/2022
Rapid Response and Novel Research in No Due Date
A.24 N/A
Earth Science [3]
Airborne Instrument Technology
A.25 Not Solicited This Year
Transition
 Earth Science U.S. Participating
A.26 05/20/2022 07/19/2022
Investigator
Making Earth System Data Records for
A.27 04/26/2022 06/02/2022
Use in Research Environments
Interdisciplinary Research in Earth
A.28 10/14/2022 11/23/2022
Science
Earth Science Research from
A.29 Operational Geostationary Satellite 08/02/2022 10/19/2022
Systems
Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean
A.30 Ecosystem (PACE) Mission 03/07/2023 05/05/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Validation
The Science of Terra, Aqua, and Suomi-
A.31 Not Solicited This Year
NPP
A.32 Studies with ICESat-2 09/14/2022 10/12/2022
ECOSTRESS Science and Applications
A.33 05/04/2022 06/01/2022
Team
New (Early Career) Investigator
A.34 Not Solicited This Year
Program in Earth Science
Earth Science Applications: Water
A.35 Not Solicited This Year
Resources
Earth Science Applications:
A.36 05/05/2022 06/17/2022
Agriculture
A.37 SERVIR Applied Sciences Team Not Solicited This Year
Earth Science Applications: Disaster
A.38 Not Solicited This Year
Risk Reduction and Resilience
Earth Science Applications: Health and
A.39 Not Solicited This Year
Air Quality
Earth Science Applications:
A.40 03/14/2023 04/14/2023
Ecological Conservation
Advancing Collaborative Connections
A.41 Not Solicited This Year
for Earth System Science
Citizen Science for Earth Systems
A.42 Not Solicited This Year
Programs
Commercial Smallsat Data
A.43 Acquisition New Vendor Onramp 05/19/2022 07/21/2022
Evaluation
Commercial Smallsat Data Scientific 01/18/2023 03/23/2023
A.44
Analysis (Step-1) (Step-2)
A.45 Instrument Incubator Program Not Solicited This Year
A.46 Advanced Component Technology 06/10/2022 07/26/2022
In-space Validation of Earth Science
A.47 Not Solicited This Year
Technologies
Sustainable Land Imaging –
A.48 Not Solicited This Year
Technology
 Decadal Survey Incubation Study
A.49 Not Solicited This Year
Teams
Advanced Information Systems
A.50 Not Solicited This Year
Technology
Applications-Oriented
No Due Date
A.51 Augmentations for Research and N/A
[3]
Analysis
Earth System Science for Building
A.52 04/07/2022 05/17/2022
Coastal Resilience
Technology Development for Support No Due Date By invitation
A.53 of Wildfire Science and Disaster [3] only
Mitigation (Step-1) (Step-2)

A.54 Earth Venture Suborbital-4 02/28/2023 04/27/2023

(Step-1) (Step-2)
Land-Cover/Land-Use Change SARI
A.55 12/01/2022 01/18/2023
Synthesis
Heliophysics Research Program
B.1 N/A N/A
Overview
B.2 Heliophysics Supporting Research Not Solicited This Year
Heliophysics Theory, Modeling and 12/15/2022 03/14/2023
B.3
Simulations (Step-1) (Step-2)

B.4 Heliophysics Guest Investigators-Open 05/24/2022 08/09/2022

(Step-1) (Step-2)
B.5 Living with a Star Science 09/08/2022 11/23/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
B.6 Living with a Star Strategic Capabilities Not Solicited This Year
Space Weather Science Application 04/12/2022 06/14/2022
B.7
Research-to-Operations-to-Research (Step-1) (Step-2)
Heliophysics Technology and
B.8 N/A 08/31/2022
Instrument Development for Science
Heliophysics Low Cost Access to 11/17/2022
B.9 01/19/2023
Space (Mandatory NOI)
Heliophysics Flight Opportunities
B.10 N/A 09/01/2022
Studies
Heliophysics Flight Opportunities for
B.11 N/A 06/22/2022
Research and Technology
Heliophysics Data Environment No Due Date
B.12 N/A
Enhancements [3]
Heliophysics U.S. Participating
B.13 Not Solicited This Year
Investigator
Heliophysics Early Career Investigator 07/28/2022 10/18/2022
B.14
Program (Step-1) (Step-2)
Heliophysics Innovation in Technology No Due Date
B.15 N/A
and Science [3]
 Heliophysics Artificial
B.16 Intelligence/Machine Learning-Ready 10/28/2022 01/18/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Data
B.17 Interdisciplinary Science for Eclipse 09/09/2022 11/08/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
B.18 Living With a Star Tools and Methods Not Solicited This Year
Heliophysics Living with a Star
B.19 Not Solicited This Year
Infrastructure
No Due Date
B.20 Heliophysics Tools and Methods N/A
[3]
Heliophysics Citizen Science 08/24/2022 10/13/2022
B.21
Investigations (Step-1) (Step-2)

B.22 Space Weather Centers of Excellence 06/21/2022 09/20/2022

(Step-1) (Step-2)
Planetary Science Research Program
C.1 N/A N/A
Overview
No Due Date
C.2 Emerging Worlds N/A
[3]
No Due Date
C.3 Solar System Workings N/A
[3]
Planetary Data Archiving and No Due Date
C.4 N/A
Restoration [3]
No Due Date
C.5 Exobiology N/A
[3]
No Due Date
C.6 Solar System Observations N/A
[3]
C.7 New Frontiers Data Analysis Program 09/07/2022 11/03/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
C.8 Lunar Data Analysis 12/01/2022 02/23/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
C.9 Mars Data Analysis 09/07/2022 11/15/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
C.10 Cassini Data Analysis Program 05/05/2022 07/07/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
C.11 Discovery Data Analysis 09/06/2022 11/01/2022
(Mandatory NOI)
Planetary Instrument Concepts for the
No Due Date
C.12 Advancement of Solar System N/A
[3]
Observations
Maturation of Instruments for Solar 04/06/2022 07/14/2022
C.13
System Exploration (Step-1) (Step-2)
Planetary Science and Technology
C.14 Not Solicited This Year
Through Analog Research
C.15 Planetary Protection Research 06/21/2022 07/20/2022
 Laboratory Analysis of Returned No Due Date
C.16 N/A
Samples [3]
C.17 Planetary Science Enabling Facilities 04/08/2022 06/03/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
C.18 Planetary Science Early Career Award N/A 12/08/2022
Development and Advancement of 04/13/2022 06/15/2022
C.19
Lunar Instrumentation (Step-1) (Step-2)
Interdisciplinary Consortia for 09/15/2022 01/10/2023
C.20
Astrobiology Research (Step-1) (Step-2)
Yearly Opportunities for Research in 04/21/2022 06/16/2022
C.21
Planetary Defense (Step-1) (Step-2)
Concepts for Ocean Worlds Life
C.22 Not Solicited This Year
Detection Technology
Analog Activities to Support Artemis
C.23 N/A 12/06/2022
Lunar Operations
Martian Moons Exploration 06/16/2022
C.24 (Mandatory 08/16/2022
Participating Scientist Program NOI)
C.25 Artemis III Geology Team 02/24/2023 04/25/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Apollo Next Generation Sample 10/17/2022 01/19/2023
C.26
Analysis Program (Step-1) (Step-2)
Precursor Science Investigations for 11/01/2022 12/16/2022
C.27
Europa (Step-1) (Step-2)
Astrophysics Research Program
D.1 N/A N/A
Overview
D.2 Astrophysics Data Analysis 04/01/2022 05/19/2022
D.3 Astrophysics Research and Analysis 11/04/2022 12/15/2022
(Mandatory NOI)
D.4 Astrophysics Theory Not Solicited This Year
Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory 09/22/2022
D.5 N/A (Phase-1 via
General Investigator – Cycle 19 ARK RPS)

02/16/2023
D.6 Fermi General Investigator – Cycle 16 N/A (Phase-1 via
ARK RPS)
11/04/2022
D.7 Strategic Astrophysics Technology (Mandatory 12/15/2022
NOI)
Nancy Grace Roman Technology
D.8 Fellowships for Early Career See D.3 or D.7
Researchers
01/26/2023
D.9 NuSTAR General Observer – Cycle 9 N/A (Phase-1 via
ARK RPS)
 04/14/2023
D.10 TESS General Investigator – Cycle 6 N/A (Phase-1 via
ARK RPS)
09/14/2022
D.11 NICER General Observer – Cycle 5 N/A (Phase-1 via
ARK RPS)
Theoretical and Computational
D.12 10/04/2022 11/04/2022
Astrophysics Networks
D.13 Astrophysics Pioneers 01/27/2023 03/16/2023
(Mandatory NOI)
Nancy Grace Roman Space
D.14 Telescope Research and Support 01/20/2023 03/21/2023
Participation Opportunities
D.15 Lisa Preparatory Science 01/20/2023 03/16/2023
(Mandatory NOI)
Astrophysics Decadal Survey 01/20/2023
D.16 03/24/2023
Precursor Science (Mandatory NOI)
X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy
D.17 N/A 07/21/2022
Mission Guest Scientist Program
Extreme Precision Radial Velocity 02/16/2023 04/26/2023
D.18
Foundation Science (Step-1) (Step-2)
Ultraviolet Transient Astronomy
D.19 Satellite Participating Scientists 01/23/2023 03/31/2023
Program
Biological and Physical Sciences
E.1 N/A N/A
Division Research Overview
E.2 Biophysics Not Solicited This Year
E.3 Complex Fluids Not Solicited This Year
E.4 Combustion Science Not Solicited This Year
E.5 Fluid Physics Not Solicited This Year
E.6 Fundamental Physics 07/19/2022 09/16/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
E.7 Materials Science Not Solicited This Year
E.8 Physical Sciences Informatics 10/31/2022 01/10/2023
E.9 Space Biology Research 02/22/2023 05/17/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
E.10 Space Biology: Animal Research Not Solicited This Year
Research Pathfinder for Beyond Low
E.11 Earth Orbit Space Biology 09/01/2022 10/27/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Investigations
F.1 Cross Division Research Overview N/A N/A
Any Time
Topical Workshops, Symposia, and
F.2 N/A Through May
Conferences 12, 2023
 F.3 Exoplanets Research 03/31/2022 05/26/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
F.4 Habitable Worlds 11/08/2022 02/03/2023
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Future Investigators in NASA Earth
F.5 N/A 02/14/2023
and Space Science and Technology
F.6 Science Activation Program Integration Not Solicited This Year
Support for Open Source Tools,
F.7 Not Solicited This Year
Frameworks, and Libraries
Supplemental Open Source Software No Due Date
F.8 N/A
Awards [3]
Citizen Science Seed Funding
F.9 11/22/2022 01/24/2023
Program
Payloads and Research
F.10 Investigations on the Surface of the 10/24/2022 12/20/2022
(Step-1) (Step-2)
Moon
Stand Alone Location Agnostic
Payloads and Research
F.11 Not Solicited This Year
Investigations on the Surface of the
Moon
F.12 Artemis Deployed Instruments Program Not Solicited This Year
Lunar Terrain Vehicle Instruments
F.13 Not Solicited This Year
Program
F.14 Transform to Open Science Training 11/10/2022 12/08/2022
No Due Date
F.15 High Priority Open-Source Science N/A
[3]
Supplement for Scientific Software
F.16 Not Solicited This Year
Platforms
Economic, Social, and Policy
F.17 Analyses of Orbital Debris and Space N/A 06/17/2022
Sustainability
No Due Date
F.18 NASA Innovation Corps N/A
[3]

Multidomain Reusable Artificial 11/09/2022

F.19 (Mandatory 01/13/2023
Intelligence Tools NOI)

Notes:
[1] Amended due dates and new program elements will be indicated with bold red text
as ROSES-2022 is amended through the year.
[2] See Sections IV(b)(vi) and IV(b)(vii) of the Summary of Solicitation for a discussion
of Notice of Intent (NOI) vs. a Step-1 proposal. If NOIs are requested, a due date is
provided in the table. If NOIs are required by a program in order to be able to submit
a proposal, it will be indicated on this table with "(mandatory)". If NOIs are replaced
by a Step-1 proposal, the table entry will say “(Step-1)”.
[3] Proposals may be submitted to this program at any up to March 29, 2023, when it is
anticipated that ROSES-2023 will be open. Proposers should carefully read the
solicitation for information about review schedule and possible restrictions on, for
example, proposal resubmissions.
APPENDIX A. EARTH SCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM
NOTICE: May 10, 2022, Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus
Area science questions have been added to Section 2.5 of A.1 on the
top of page 18. New text is in bold.
A.1 EARTH SCIENCE RESEARCH OVERVIEW
1. Introduction
NASA's Earth Science Research Program supports research activities that address the
Earth system and seek to characterize its properties on a broad range of spatial and
temporal scales, to understand the naturally occurring and human-induced processes
that drive the Earth system, and to improve our capability for predicting its future
evolution. The focus of the Earth Science Research Program is the use of space-based
measurements to provide information not available by other means. NASA's program is
an end-to-end one that starts with the development of observational techniques and the
instrument technology needed to implement them; tests them in the laboratory and from
an appropriate set of in-situ, surface-, ship-, balloon-, aircraft-, and/or space-based
platforms; uses the results to increase basic process knowledge; incorporates results
into complex computational models that can be used to more fully characterize the
present state and future evolution of the Earth system; and develops partnerships with
other national and international organizations that can use the generated information in
environmental forecasting and in policy, business, and management decisions.
The scientific documentation underlying the Earth Science Research Program provides
a comprehensive background for the science solicited here. The Research Program
addresses NASA's Strategic Goal 1.1 to "Understand The Sun, Earth, Solar System,
and Universe". (See the most recent NASA Strategic Plan:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_2018_strategic_plan.pdf). In
particular, it addresses the more specific Science Goals, see SCIENCE 2020-2024: A
Vision for Scientific Excellence (hereinafter the NASA Science Plan), which are to:
• Advance the understanding of changes in the Earth's radiation balance, air
quality, and the ozone layer that result from changes in atmospheric composition;
• Improve the capability to predict weather and extreme weather events;
• Detect and predict changes in Earth’s ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles,
including land cover, biodiversity, and the global carbon cycle;
• Enable better assessment and management of water quality and quantity to
accurately predict how the global water cycle evolves in response to climate
change;
• Improve the ability to predict climate changes by better understanding the roles
and interactions of the oceans, atmosphere, land, and ice in the climate system;
• Characterize the dynamics of the Earth’s surface and interior, improving the
capability to assess and respond to natural hazards and extreme events; and
• Further the use of Earth system science research to inform decisions and provide
benefits to society.
The most up-to-date description of the Earth Science Research Program may be found
in Section 4.2 of the NASA Science Plan at http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-

A.1-1
strategy. The most recent Decadal Survey covering NASA's Earth science activities,
Thriving on our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space,
was released on January 5, 2018 by the National Academies of Science, Engineering,
and Medicine (see https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24938/thriving-on-our-changing-planet-
a-decadal-strategy-for-earth). This 2018 Decadal Survey now serves as a foundational
document for NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD), and includes recommendations for
the scopes, foci, and relative budgetary magnitudes of the Research and Analysis
(R&A), Applications, and Technology portions of the ESD program. In addition, the
Decadal Survey includes a specific endorsement of the NASA missions making up the
2017 Program of Record (comprehensively defined in the Survey's Appendix A).
NASA's Earth Science Research Program is a major contributor to several interagency
efforts within the U.S. Government, most notably the U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP, see http://www.globalchange.gov), to which NASA is the major
contributor. This program released its strategic plan in 2012, the National Global
Change Research Plan 2012-2021: A Strategic Plan for the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/national-global-
change-research-plan-2012–2021-strategic-plan-us-global-change). This plan is
updated triennially; the most recent such update may be found at
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/strategic-plan/2016/usgcrp-strategic-plan-2016.pdf.
Similarly, there are interagency programs related to Meteorological Services, Oceans,
Earth Observations, and the Arctic. In addition, there are several other subgroups of the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on the Environment that
serve to provide interagency coordination in areas covered by NASA’s Earth Science
Research Program. NASA's Earth Science Research Program has focused bilateral
efforts with other Federal agencies on transitioning knowledge and approaches from
research to operations, most notably with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Research is solicited in four major areas for the Earth Science Research Program:
research and analysis (R&A), satellite missions, applied sciences, and enabling
capabilities, with R&A containing the bulk of the solicited research. R&A emphasizes the
development of new scientific knowledge, including the analysis of data from NASA
satellite missions and the development and application of complex models that
assimilate these science data products and/or use them for improving predictive
capabilities. Within the Earth Science Research Program, the research and analysis
activities include those historically coming under R&A, mission science team,
interdisciplinary science, and calibration/validation activities.
The applied sciences area supports efforts to discover and demonstrate innovative and
practical uses of NASA Earth science observations and research through applications
projects carried out in partnership with end user organizations
(http://AppliedSciences.nasa.gov/). Applied sciences, thus, serves as a bridge between
the data, modeling, and knowledge generated by NASA Earth science and the
information required by Government agencies, companies, and organizations to
improve their products, services, and decision making.
Enabling capabilities include those programmatic elements with sufficient breadth to
contribute to a broad range of activities within the Earth Science Research Program and

A.1-2
typically involve the development of some kind of capability whose sustained availability
is considered to be important for the Program's future. These include focused activities
in support of education; data, information, and management; and airborne science, as
well as some broadly-based technology-related elements (activities which are very
focused towards a single scientific area of the Earth Science Research Program will be
solicited through the R&A area).
Open scientific practices are critical for facilitating transparency of the scientific process,
reproducibility of results, and information sharing in the scientific community and
beyond. Scientific knowledge is most robust and actionable when resulting from
transparent, traceable, and reproducible methods. SMD is committed to encouraging
and enabling openness and transparency in the scientific process. This requires open
access to the data used in scientific analysis, to scientific publications, and to software
used to arrive at results. Software developed to be openly accessible, without
restrictions on modification and distribution, enables reuse across Federal agencies,
reduces overall costs to the Government, removes barriers to innovation, ensures
consistency through the application of uniform standards, and facilitates collaboration
between agencies and non-Federal institutions. Thus, consistent with SMD's Scientific
Information policy (SPD-41), most program elements require a Data Management Plan
and any given program element may require an Open-Source Software (OSS) plan, see
Section 1.1, below.
Contracts will not be issued in response to proposals submitted to the research program
elements in Appendix A, unless otherwise noted. Instead, awards to non-governmental
organizations will be made in the forms of grants or cooperative agreements, as
appropriate given the nature of the work solicited. For more about award types see
Section II.(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Awards internal to the
Government will be made through the usual Agency processes.
Earth Science Division Templates for the Table of Work Effort and Current and Pending
Support are now required for a number of program elements in Appendix A. Where
these are required, it is clearly stated within the ROSES element.
1.1 Data Management Plans, Software Development Plans and Archiving
To broaden access to the results of NASA-funded research, most proposals to ROSES
require a data management plan (DMP) or an explanation of why one is not necessary
given the nature of the work proposed. The philosophy behind this requirement is that
all relevant taxpayer-supported data should be made publicly available (i.e., without fee
or restriction of use) at the time of publication, or at the earliest practical time thereafter,
through a stable and long-term supported public data repository. If proposals do not
generate or otherwise produce data suitable for deposition in a public repository, then
that should be explicitly justified in the DMP. Individual program elements may provide
instructions that amplify the following requirements, but the requirements stated below
are the minimum.
The kinds of proposals that require a data management plan are described in the NASA
Plan for increasing access to results of Federally funded research and in the SARA
DMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for ROSES. Proposals to instrument
development programs (e.g., Advanced Information Systems Technology, the

A.1-3
Instrument Incubator Program, Advanced Component Technology, and In-Space
Validation of Earth Science Technologies) do not require a DMP. Moreover, selected
calls include data requirements in the text that supersede the standard guidance. Any
proposal intending to submit data products for archival and public distribution by a
NASA Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) should review guidelines on the
Earthdata web site.
For some program elements, the nature of the work is inexorably linked to the handling
of data so a DMP is part of the page limit for the Scientific/Technical/Management
(S/T/M) section of the proposal. With the exception of those elements where instructions
explicitly say otherwise, all proposals to any of the ROSES elements that require DMPs
must place it in a special section of the proposal, not to exceed two pages in length
entitled "Data Management Plan" immediately following the references and citations for
the S/T/M portion of the proposal. The two-page DMP section does not count against
the 15-page limit of the S/T/M section. Formatting requirements for DMPs are the same
as for the S/T/M section.
Starting in ROSES-2020, the sufficiency of the data management plan (DMP) became
part of the Merit evaluation and thus may have a bearing on whether or not the proposal
is selected. Individual program elements may also require a software development plan
and/or an Open-Source Software (OSS) plan, which may also be part of the evaluation
of the proposal. The budget for the proposal should include any costs associated with
these plans.
Funded researchers and research institutions, including NASA centers, are responsible
for ensuring and demonstrating compliance with the approved DMPs as part of their
awards. Awardees who do not fulfill the intent of their DMPs may have continuing funds
withheld and this may be considered in the evaluation of future proposals.
1.1.1 Data
The DMP must cover any data needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-
reviewed publications, particularly data underlying figures, maps, and tables. It also
needs to cover any other data and software that would enable the
replication/reproduction of published results and any future research building on those
results.
"Data" does not include preliminary and other unpublished data, data in prepublication
documents, private communications, or certain other types of information that have
been specifically exempted from the DMP requirement.
In the case of a project that would produce no data, as defined above, or only data
specifically exempted, the DMP must state that no data preservation or data sharing is
needed, and must also explain why. In a case where no appropriate archive exists for a
particular data set, the DMP should discuss alternative methods for making the data
publicly available.
ESD-funded projects are required to comply with the NASA ESD Open Data, Services
and Software Policy https://earthdata.nasa.gov/collaborate/open-data-services-and-
software. For project data, these requirements include:

A.1-4
 a. Making data available in machine readable formats consistent with ESD standards
with no period of exclusive access.
b. Making data available with robust, standard-compliant meta-data.
c. Making the data collection available with a digital object identifier to support
citation.
d. Conforming to approved community standards for data formats, interfaces, and
metadata, see https://earthdata.nasa.gov/esdis/eso/standards-and-references.
The DMP must contain the following elements, as appropriate to the project, in
adequate detail for review:
• A description of data types, volume, formats, and (where relevant) standards;
• A description of the schedule for data archiving and sharing;
• A description of the intended repositories for archived data, including
mechanisms for public access and distribution;
• A discussion of how the plan enables long-term preservation of data;
• A discussion of roles and responsibilities of team members in accomplishing the
DMP. If funds are required for data management activities, these should be
covered in the normal budget and budget justification sections of the proposal.
1.1.2 Software
The DMP must also cover the management and development of software necessary to
complete the scientific research. The DMP must include what software development is
needed, how the software will be managed and, if applicable, where the software will be
shared.
Project software, code, algorithms, and other documentation necessary for arriving at
scientific results should be made publicly available. For project software, requirements
include:
a. Software should be developed openly in a publicly accessible, version-controlled
platform that allows for community contributions using a permissive software
license (https://earthdata.nasa.gov/collaborate/open-data-services-and-
software/esds-open-source-policy#license).
b. Making product documentation (Algorithm Theoretical Basis Documents, user's
guide, data quality information, etc.) publicly available.
c. All calibration information and simulated products supporting development and
validation of algorithms should be made available.
Even for programs that do not require such plans, all else being equal, NASA may give
preference to proposals that include such a plan for committing software as Open
Source Software (OSS), beginning at the inception of the proposed work.
If required, the Open Source Development Plan
(https://earthdata.nasa.gov/collaborate/open-data-services-and-software/esds-open-
source-policy#development) must include the identification of software components
developed as part of the proposed work, and the designation of a permissive, widely
accepted OSS license and a public repository hosting service for these components.
Please read the individual appendices and associated amendments carefully and

A.1-5
contact the program officers if you have any questions regarding OSS development for
a given call.
Software, whether a stand-alone program, an enhancement to existing code, or a
module that interfaces with existing codes, created as part of a ROSES award, should
be made publicly available when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when there is
scientific utility in doing so. Stand-alone code that is not straightforward to implement, or
whose utility is significantly outweighed by the costs to share it, is not expected to be
made available. This expectation extends to three types of software, defined in the table
below.
NASA expects that the source code, with associated documentation sufficient to enable
use of the code, will be made publicly available as Open Source Software (OSS). This
includes all software developed with ESD funding used in the production of data
products, as well as software developed to discover, access, visualize, and transform
NASA data. OSS is defined as software that can be accessed, used, modified, and
shared by anyone. The definition of OSS, along with examples of OSS licensing and
public code repositories, can be found on the Earthdata web site. Some elements
require a separate Software Development Plan. Please read the program elements
carefully.
Short Name Name Description Examples
Libraries Libraries and Generic tools implementing Numerical Recipes, NumPy,
toolkits well-known algorithms, general FFTs, LAPACK,
providing statistical analysis scikit-learn, AstroPy, GDAL
or visualization, and so on,
that are incorporated in
other software categories.
Analysis Analysis, post- Generalized software (not Stand-alone image processing,
software processing, or low-level libraries) used to topology analysis, vector-field
visualization manipulate measurements analysis, satellite analysis
software or model results to visualize tools, and so on
or gain understanding.
Frameworks Modeling Multicomponent software Community Earth System
frameworks systems that incorporate a Model (CESM) is a collection
variety of models and of coupled models including
couple them together in a atmospheric, oceanographic,
complex way. sea ice, land surface, and other
models
General statement about model results or any derived data products: Whether derived
products and model output should be archived is determined by the scientific utility and
need on a case-by-case basis. When these types of data/output are considered for
long-term archive and availability at a DAAC, the utility of archiving the data set is
evaluated by the DAAC User Working Group (UWG) and the DAAC program scientist. If
it is determined there is sufficient scientific justification and budget, a DAAC will then
archive the data. Any proposal intending to submit data products for archival and public

A.1-6
distribution by a NASA Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) should review
guidelines on the Earthdata web site. See this web page for details:
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/collaborate/new-missions/adding-competitive-other. If a
dataset is selected for archival, the DAAC may require updates to the DMP including
information about data processing and quality. Proposers should refer to Scientific
Information policy (SPD-41) for a summary of expectations and requirements for the
sharing of publications, data, and software produced as part of ROSES awards.
Proposals that include non-mission data (e.g., laboratory results, Earth-based
observations) not publicly available (e.g., in a publicly accessible archive, in the
literature, etc.) are expected to describe plans to make the data available following the
Data Management Plan guidelines.
1.1.3 Publications
Consistent with Section 1c of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and the NASA
approach for Increasing Access to Results of Federally Funded Research, as-accepted
manuscript versions of publications that result from NASA funding must be submitted to
PubSpace to be made publicly accessible within 12 months of publication.
Moreover, recipients of ESD funding are also encouraged to:
a. Make conference presentations, and technical documents publicly available
b. Publish manuscripts as open access. The costs for publishing as open access
should be included in the proposed budget.
c. Make as-accepted manuscripts available on preprint services.
2. Earth Science Research and Analysis Focus Areas
The Earth Science R&A activity is built around the creation of new scientific knowledge
about the Earth system. The analysis and interpretation of data from NASA's satellites
form the heart of the R&A program in the Earth Science Research Program, although a
full range of underlying scientific activity needed to establish a rigorous base for the
satellite data and their use in computational models, including those for assimilation and
forecasting, is also included. The complexity of the Earth system, in which spatial and
temporal variability exists on a range of scales, requires that an organized scientific
approach be developed for addressing the complex, interdisciplinary problems that
exist, taking good care that, in doing so, there is a recognition of the objective to
integrate science across the programmatic elements towards a comprehensive
understanding of the Earth system.
In the Earth system, these elements may be built around aspects of the Earth that
emphasize the particular attributes that make it stand out among known planetary
bodies. These include the presence of carbon-based life and their associated ecology;
water in multiple, interacting phases; a fluid atmosphere and ocean that redistribute
heat over the planetary surface; an oxidizing and protective atmosphere, albeit one
subject to a wide range of fluctuations in its physical properties (especially temperature,
moisture, and winds); a solid but dynamically active surface and interior that drive
changes in the Earth’s shape, orientation, rotation, gravity, and surface and atmospheric
composition; and an external environment driven by a large and varying star whose
magnetic field also serves to shield the Earth from the broader astronomical

A.1-7
environment. The resulting structure is comprised of six interdisciplinary science Focus
Areas:
• Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems,
• Water and Energy Cycle,
• Climate Variability and Change,
• Atmospheric Composition,
• Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics, and
• Earth Surface and Interior.
These Focus Areas form the basis around which R&A activity is solicited for the Earth
Science Research Program. Given the interconnectedness of these science Focus
Areas, research that crosses individual Focus Areas is also sought, and a number of
specific cases of such connectivity will be identified in some of the specific research
opportunities identified below. In particular, several instrument science teams for NASA
satellite missions are solicited through this NRA. These can contribute to scientific
advances in several areas, and potential investigators may want to look carefully at all
such teams for opportunities that may be relevant to them. In addition, there are several
cross-cutting elements included within this appendix, most notably one that solicits
proposals that address rapid response to significant Earth system events, as well as
truly novel work that doesn’t easily fit the active ROSES elements this year or in the
recent past (Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science – program element
A.24).
Several elements solicited in prior years are not being solicited this year, but have
program-specific ROSES elements for completeness, as well as to provide potential
proposers with plans about the anticipated dates of the next solicitation.
• Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry (program element A.3);
• Carbon Cycle Science (program element A.5);
• Biodiversity (program element A.7);
• Ocean Salinity Science Team (program element A.9);
• Sea Level Change Team (program element A.10);
• SWOT Science Team (program element A.11);
• Ocean Surface Topography Science Team (program element A.12);
• Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction (program element A.14);
• Cryospheric Science (program element A.15);
• Atmospheric Composition: Upper Atmospheric Research Program (program
element A.16);
• Atmospheric Composition: Radiation Sciences Program (program element A.17);
• SMAP Science Team (program element A.21);
• The Science of Terra, Aqua, and Suomi-NPP (program element A.31);
• New (Early Career) Investigator Program in Earth Science (program element
A.34);
• Earth Science Applications: Water Resources (program element A.35);
• Earth Science Applications: SERVIR Applied Sciences Team (program element
A.37);

A.1-8
 • Earth Science Applications: Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience (program
element A.38);
• Earth Science Applications: Health and Air Quality Applications (program
element A.39);
• Advancing Collaborative Connections for Earth System Science (program
element A.41);
• Citizen Science for Earth Systems Program (program element A.42);
• Instrument Incubator Program (program element A.45);
• In-space Validation of Earth Science Technologies (program element A.47)
• Decadal Survey Incubation Study Teams (program element A.49); and
• Advanced Information Systems Technology (program element A.50).
Elements for which it has not yet been decided whether or not to solicit during the
period of applicability of this year’s ROSES are not included in this list, but are included
by focus area and/or program component later in Appendix A. Note that not all elements
which have been solicited in previous ROSES are included this year; some will
reappear in future solicitations at an appropriate time that should allow for smooth
transition between the currently funded tasks and those that would come out of the next
solicitation.
2.1 Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems
The carbon cycle, which encompasses the flow and transformation of carbon between
reservoirs, is the backbone element that sustains life on planet Earth. The cycling of
carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere contributes to the planetary
greenhouse effect and global climate. Organic and inorganic carbon flow through
ecosystems as part of food webs and interact with the climate system. Earth’s carbon
cycle and ecosystems are subject to human intervention and environmental changes on
an unprecedented scale, in both rate and geographical extent. This has the potential to
impact ecosystem services, which provide a wide variety of essential goods to human
societies. Our ability to ameliorate, adapt to, or benefit from these rapid changes
requires fundamental knowledge of the responses of the carbon cycle and terrestrial
and marine ecosystems to global change. Also required is an understanding of the
implications of these changes for food production, biodiversity, sustainable resource
management, and the maintenance of a healthy, productive environment. The focus
area is directly related to the “Ecosystem Change” topic identified in the NASA Science
Plan.
The Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Focus Area addresses: (1) the distribution and
cycling of carbon among the active terrestrial, marine, and atmospheric reservoirs and
(2) ecosystems as they are affected by human activity, as they change due to their own
intrinsic biogeochemical dynamics, and as they respond to climatic variations and, in
turn, affect climate. Research activities focus on providing data and information derived
from remote sensing systems to answer the following science questions:
• How are global ecosystems changing?
• What changes are occurring in global land cover and land use, and what
are their causes?

A.1-9
 • How do ecosystems, land cover and biogeochemical cycles respond to
and affect global environmental change?
• What are the consequences of land cover and land use change for
human societies and the sustainability of ecosystems?
• What are the consequences of climate change and increased human
activities for coastal regions?
• How will carbon cycle dynamics and terrestrial and marine ecosystems
change in the future?
Frequent, repeat observations from space, at both moderate and high spatial
resolutions, are required to address the heterogeneity of living systems. Complementary
airborne and in-situ observations, intensive field campaigns and related process
studies, fundamental research, data and information systems, and modeling are
employed to interpret the satellite observations and answer carbon cycle and
ecosystem science questions.
The goal of the Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Focus Area is to:
• Quantify, understand, and predict changes in Earth's ecosystems and
biogeochemical cycles, including the global carbon cycle, land cover, and
biodiversity.
Anticipated products and payoffs include:
• Assessments of ecosystem response to climatic and other environmental
changes and the effects on food, fiber, biodiversity, primary productivity, and
other ecological goods and services;
• Quantitative carbon budgets for key ecosystems along with the identification of
sources and sinks of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases;
• Documentation and prediction of land-cover and land-use change, as well as
assessments of consequences to society and for resource sustainability;
• Identification of factors that determine the distribution and abundance of
elements of biodiversity as well as how biodiversity acts as a driver on the wider
Earth System;
• Understanding of ecosystem interactions with the atmosphere and hydrosphere
leading to comprehensive modeling of the exchange of gases, aerosols, water,
and energy among the components of the Earth system; and
• Improved representations of ecosystem and carbon cycling processes within
global climate models leading to more credible predictions of climate and other
Earth system functions.
Interdisciplinary collaborations with other Earth Science Research Program Focus
Areas include:
• Work with the Water and Energy Cycle Focus Area on land-atmosphere
exchanges of water and energy and the effects of land-cover and land-use
change on water resources;
• Work with the Atmospheric Composition Focus Area on surface emissions and
atmospheric transport of trace gases and aerosols and on measurement of
carbon-containing greenhouse gases;

A.1-10
 • Work with the Climate Variability and Change and Weather and Atmospheric
Dynamics Focus Areas on air-sea CO2 exchange and to share the observations
of climate, weather, ecosystems, and land cover that are needed to drive Earth
system models; and
• Coordinate with the Earth Surface and Interior Focus Area to advance and/or
exploit radar, lidar, and hyperspectral remote sensing technologies for surface
properties.
The ROSES elements most closely directed towards the Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems
Focus Area that are or may be soliciting proposals in ROSES this year are:
• Land-Cover and Land-Use Change (program element A.2);
• Scoping Studies for the Next Terrestrial Ecology Field Campaign (program
element A.4); and
• Carbon Monitoring System (program element A.6).
Topics relevant to the Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Focus Area that are actively or
potentially soliciting in ROSES this year include the following program elements:
• Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science (program element A.24);
• Airborne Instrument Technology Transition (program element A.25);
• Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator (program element A.26);
• Making Earth System Data Records for use in Research Environments (program
element A.27);
• Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Sciences (program element A.28);
• Earth System Research from Operational Geostationary Satellite Systems
(program element A.29);
• PACE Mission Validation (program element A.30);
• Studies with ICESat-2 (program element A.32);
• ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team (program element A.33);
• Agriculture Applied Research Using Earth Observations (program element A.36);
• Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition New Vendor Onramp Evaluation (program
element A.43);
• Commercial SmallSat Data Scientific Analysis (program element A.44);
• Advanced Component Technology (program element A.46);
• Sustainable Land Imaging - Technology (program element A.48);
• Applications-Oriented Augmentations for Research and Analysis (program
element A.51);
• Earth System Science for Building Coastal Resilience (program element A.52);
• Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science and Disaster Mitigation
(program element A.53); and
• Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences (program element F.2).
2.2 Climate Variability and Change
Climate change is one of the major themes guiding Earth System Science today, and
NASA is at the forefront of quantifying forcings and feedbacks of recent and future
climate change. To address the challenging questions associated with Climate
Variability and Change, NASA implements a comprehensive end-to-end program which

A.1-11
ranges from global high-resolution observations to data assimilation and model
predictions. The focus area is most closely related to the "Reducing climate uncertainty
and informing societal response" and "Sea-level rise" topics identified in the NASA
Science Plan. Recently, the Climate Variability and Change Focus Area has directed its
research toward addressing five specific questions:
• How and why is global ocean circulation varying on interannual, decadal, and
longer time scales?
• What changes are occurring in the mass and extent of the Earth’s ice cover, and
what drives them?
• How is global sea level affected by natural variability and human-induced change
in the Earth system?
• What are the climate-relevant land, atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and
biospheric processes, and how do they interact?
• How can predictions of climate variability and change be improved?
NASA provides near-global coverage of key observations for studying the climate
system. This includes selected ocean properties every two to ten days as well as
observations of the vast expanses of polar land and sea ice. Importantly, these
observations are provided at the temporal and spatial scales necessary to detect
change. Current capabilities include global measurements of sea-surface topography,
ocean-vector winds, ice topography and motion, and mass movements of the Earth’s
fluid envelope and cryosphere. By combining these observations with other NASA
space-based measurements, the ocean and cryosphere can be linked to other
components of the Earth System, such as cloud distribution, snow cover, surface
temperatures, humidity characteristics and others. In addition to investments in space-
based observations, NASA maintains an active research program to utilize data from
satellites to both improve our understanding of these components of the Earth system
and the interactions between them and to assess how satellite observations can be
used to improve predictive capability.
Climate-variability and change research is now not just a global issue, but also a
research problem that directly impacts regional to local environments. In fact, local-to-
regional anthropogenic-induced changes are having global impacts whose magnitudes
are expected to increase in the future. Climate models have moved toward higher and
higher spatial resolution as computer resources have improved. During the next
decade, climate models are expected to approach the spatial resolution of weather and
regional models as more details of Earth System processes are incorporated.
The climate system is dynamic and complex, and modeling is the only way we can
effectively integrate the observations and current knowledge of individual components
fully to characterize current conditions and underlying mechanisms, as well as to project
the future states of the climate system. This modeling requires a concerted effort both to
improve the representation of physical, chemical, and biological processes and to
incorporate observations into climate models through data assimilation and other
techniques. The ultimate objective is to enable a predictive capability of climate change
on time scales ranging from seasonal to multidecadal.

A.1-12
The ROSES elements most closely directed towards the Climate Variability and Change
Focus Area that are or may be soliciting proposals in ROSES this year are:
• Physical Oceanography (program element A.8); and
• Ocean Vector Winds Science Team (program element A.13).
Topics relevant to the Climate Variability and Change Focus Area that are actively or
potentially soliciting in ROSES this year include the following program elements:
• Aura Science Team and Atmospheric Composition Modeling and Analysis
Program (program element A.18);
• Airborne Instrument Technology Transition (program element A.25);
• Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science (program element A.24);
• Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator (program element A.26);
• Making Earth System Data Records for use in Research Environments (program
element A.27);
• Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Sciences (program element A.28);
• Earth System Research from Operational Geostationary Satellite Systems
(program element A.29);
• PACE Mission Validation (program element A.30);
• Studies with ICESat-2 (program element A.32);
• ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team (program element A.33);
• Agriculture Applied Research Using Earth Observations (program element A.36);
• Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition New Vendor Onramp Evaluation (program
element A.43);
• Commercial SmallSat Data Scientific Analysis (program element A.44);
• Advanced Component Technology (program element A.46);
• Sustainable Land Imaging - Technology (program element A.48);
• Applications-Oriented Augmentations for Research and Analysis (program
element A.51);
• Earth System Science for Building Coastal Resilience (program element A.52);
• Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science and Disaster Mitigation
(program element A.53); and
• Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences (program element F.2).
2.3 Atmospheric Composition
Changes in atmospheric composition affect air quality, weather, climate, and critical
constituents, such as ozone and aerosol particles. Atmospheric exchange links
terrestrial and oceanic pools within the carbon cycle and other biogeochemical cycles.
Solar radiation affects atmospheric chemistry and is, thus, a critical factor in
atmospheric composition. Atmospheric composition, in turn, affects incoming solar and
outgoing long wave radiation. Atmospheric composition is central to Earth system
dynamics, since the atmosphere integrates surface emissions globally on time scales
from weeks to years and couples several environmental issues. NASA’s research for
furthering our understanding of atmospheric composition is geared to providing an
improved prognostic capability for such issues (e.g., the recovery of stratospheric ozone
and its impacts on surface ultraviolet radiation, the evolution of greenhouse gases and

A.1-13
their impacts on climate, the impact of clouds and aerosol particles on the Earth’s
energy budget and the evolution of aerosols and tropospheric ozone and their impacts
on climate and air quality). The focus area is most closely related to the "Reducing
climate uncertainty and informing societal response" and "Extending and improving
weather and air quality forecasts", topics identified in the NASA Science Plan. Toward
this end, research within the Atmospheric Composition Focus Area addresses the
following science questions:
• How is atmospheric composition changing?
• What trends in atmospheric composition and solar radiation are driving global
climate?
• How does atmospheric composition respond to and affect global environmental
change?
• What are the effects of global atmospheric composition and climate changes on
regional air quality?
• How will future changes in atmospheric composition affect ozone, climate, and
global air quality?
NASA expects to provide the necessary monitoring and evaluation tools to assess the
effects of climate change on ozone recovery and future atmospheric composition,
improved climate forecasts based on our understanding of the forcings of global
environmental change, and air quality forecasts that take into account the feedbacks
between regional air quality and global climate change. Achievements in these areas
via advances in observations, data assimilation, and modeling enable improved
predictive capabilities for describing how future changes in atmospheric composition
affect ozone, climate, and air quality. Drawing on global observations from space,
augmented by airborne, balloon, and ground-based measurements, NASA is uniquely
poised to address these issues. This integrated observational strategy is furthered via
studies of atmospheric processes using unique suborbital platform-sensor combinations
to investigate, for example: (1) the processes responsible for the emission, uptake,
transport, and chemical transformation of ozone and precursor molecules associated
with its production in the troposphere and its destruction in the stratosphere; and (2) the
formation, properties, and transport of aerosol particles in the Earth's troposphere and
stratosphere, as well as aerosol particle interaction with clouds. NASA’s research
strategy for atmospheric composition encompasses an end-to-end approach for
instrument design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and prognostic studies.
The ROSES elements most closely directed towards the Atmospheric Composition
Focus Area that are or may be soliciting proposals in ROSES this year are:
• Aura Science Team and Atmospheric Composition Modeling and Analysis
Program (program element A.18); and
• Airborne and Satellite Investigation of Asian Air Quality (ASIA-AQ, program
element A.19).
Topics relevant to the Atmospheric Composition Focus Area that are actively or
potentially soliciting in ROSES this year include the following program elements:
• Scoping Studies for the Next Terrestrial Ecology Field Campaign (program
element A.4);

A.1-14
 • Carbon Monitoring System (program element A.6);
• Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science (program element A.24);
• Airborne Instrument Technology Transition (program element A.25);
• Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator (program element A.26);
• Making Earth System Data Records for use in Research Environments (program
element A.27);
• Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Sciences (program element A.28);
• Earth System Research from Operational Geostationary Satellite Systems
(program element A.29);
• PACE Mission Validation (program element A.30);
• Studies with ICESat-2 (program element A.32);
• ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team (program element A.33);
• Agriculture Applied Research Using Earth Observations (program element A.36);
• Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition New Vendor Onramp Evaluation (program
element A.43);
• Commercial SmallSat Data Scientific Analysis (program element A.44);
• Advanced Component Technology (program element A.46);
• Sustainable Land Imaging - Technology (program element A.48);
• Applications-Oriented Augmentations for Research and Analysis (program
element A.51);
• Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science and Disaster Mitigation
(program element A.53); and
• Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences (program element F.2).
2.4 Water and Energy Cycle
Earth is a unique, living planet in our Solar System due to the abundance of water and
the vigorous cycling of that water throughout its global environment. The global water
cycle represents the transport and transformation of water within the Earth system, and,
as such, distributes fresh water over the Earth’s surface. The water cycle operates on a
continuum of time and space scales and exchanges large amounts of energy as water
undergoes phase changes and is moved from one part of the Earth system to another.
Through latent heat release from condensation and sublimation, the water cycle is a
major driving agent of global atmospheric circulation. Clouds play a critical role in
modulating the flow of energy into and out of the Earth system, while at the same time
modulating the continuous supply of solar energy that keeps the water cycle in motion.
So, while the water cycle delivers the hydrologic consequences of climate changes, the
global water cycle is both a consequence of, and influence on, the global energy cycle.
The focus area is most closely related to the "Coupling of the water and energy cycles"
topic identified in the NASA Science Plan.
The global water and energy cycles maintain a considerable influence upon the global
pathways of biogeochemical cycles. The cycling of water and energy and nutrient
exchanges among the atmosphere, ocean, and land help determine the Earth's climate
and cause much of the climate’s natural variability. Natural and human-induced
changes to the water and energy cycle have major impacts on industry, agriculture, and
other human activities. For example, increased exposure and density of human

A.1-15
settlements in vulnerable areas amplify the potential loss of life, property, and
commodities that are at risk from intense precipitation events. Improved monitoring and
prediction of the global water and energy cycle enable improved knowledge of the Earth
system that must be nurtured to proactively mitigate future adversities. Current and
forthcoming projections of such impacts will remain speculative unless fundamental
understanding is assimilated into global prediction systems and effective decision-
support tools applicable to local conditions.
The Terrestrial Hydrology Program resides exclusively within the Water and Energy
Cycle Focus Area. Other programs (Radiation Sciences, Weather and Atmospheric
Dynamics, and Land-Cover Land-Use Change) which contribute to this focus area are
shared with other focus areas (Atmospheric Composition, Weather and Atmospheric
Dynamics, and Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems, respectively). In brief, the Water and
Energy Cycle Focus Area seeks to address the topics discussed above by enhancing
our understanding of the transfer and storage of water and energy in the Earth system.
For the water cycle, the Focus Area’s emphasis is on atmospheric and terrestrial stores,
including seasonal snow cover. Permanent snow and ice, as well as ocean dynamics,
are studied within the Climate Variability and Change Focus Area. The Water and
Energy Cycle Focus Area aims to resolve all fluxes of water and the corresponding
energy fluxes involved with water changing phase.
In addition to the study of the individual components of the water and energy cycle, this
Focus Area places a high priority on integrating these components in a coherent fashion
as is pursued by the NASA Energy and Water Cycle Study (NEWS), for which more
information can be found at https://wec.gsfc.nasa.gov. NEWS has been established to
create a mechanism to export and import information, results, and technology to and
from other U.S. agencies and international partners concerned with the study and
observation of water and energy cycles, such as the Global Energy and Water Cycle
Exchanges project (GEWEX; http://www.gewex.org/).
All of the Focus Area's activities should enhance the community’s ability to answer
these research questions:
• How are global precipitation, evaporation, and the cycling of water changing?
• What are the effects of clouds and surface hydrologic processes on Earth’s
climate?
• How are variations in local weather, precipitation, and water resources related to
global climate variation?
• What are the consequences of land cover and land use change for human
societies and the sustainability of ecosystems?
• How can weather forecast duration and reliability be improved?
• How can prediction of climate variability and change be improved?
• How will water cycle dynamics change in the future?
Pursuit of answers to these questions should lead to research products, such as
satellite data and model outputs, that are useful to activities sponsored by the Applied
Sciences Program, in particular, the Applications areas of water resources, disasters,
and ecological forecasting (see Section 3 for more details on the Applied Sciences
Program). Ultimately, Water and Energy Cycle Focus Area-sponsored activities will lead

A.1-16
to the fulfillment of its goal: "Models capable of predicting the water cycle, including
floods and droughts, down to tens of kilometers resolution."
The ROSES element most closely directed towards the Water and Energy Cycle Focus
Area that is soliciting for proposals in ROSES this year is:
• Terrestrial Hydrology (program element A.20).
Topics relevant to the Water and Energy Cycle Focus Area that are actively or
potentially soliciting in ROSES this year include the following program elements:
• Scoping Studies for the Next Terrestrial Ecology Field Campaigns (program
element A.4);
• Carbon Monitoring System (program element A.6);
• Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science (program element A.24);
• Airborne Instrument Technology Transition (program element A.25);
• Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator (program element A.26);
• Making Earth System Data Records for use in Research Environments (program
element A.27);
• Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Sciences (program element A.28);
• Earth System Research from Operational Geostationary Satellite Systems
(program element A.29);
• PACE Mission Validation (program element A.30);
• Studies with ICESat-2 (program element A.32);
• ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team (program element A.33);
• Agriculture Applied Research Using Earth Observations (program element A.36);
• Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition New Vendor Onramp Evaluation (program
element A.43);
• Commercial SmallSat Data Scientific Analysis (program element A.44);
• Advanced Component Technology (program element A.46);
• Sustainable Land Imaging - Technology (program element A.48);
• Applications-Oriented Augmentations for Research and Analysis (program
element A.51);
• Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science and Disaster Mitigation
(program element A.53); and
• Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences (program element F.2).
2.5 Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics [Science Questions Added May 10, 2022]
The Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus Area represents the cooperation
among NASA programs for Atmospheric Dynamics, Weather Forecast Improvement,
and Ocean and Land Remote Sensing. It has strong ties to other Focus Areas,
especially Climate Variability and Change and Water and Energy Cycle, and it has a
supporting role in Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems and the Atmospheric Composition
Focus Areas.
The Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus Area is primarily designed to apply
NASA scientific remote sensing expertise to the problem of obtaining accurate and
globally distributed measurements of the atmosphere and the use of these
measurements in retrievals, research, and weather forecast models in order to both

A.1-17
enhance our understanding of weather systems and their role(s) in the Earth system, as
well as to improve and extend U.S. and global weather prediction. This Focus Area is
implemented in coordination with other U.S. agencies’ programs and helps address the
topic described in the NASA Science Plan "Extending and improving weather and air
quality forecasts."
Recent investment in the Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus Area is
focusing on answering the following science questions:
• How can sub-seasonal to seasonal weather forecast duration and reliability
be improved?
• How can we improve predictive capability for weather, including extreme
events?
• What is the role of deep convective towers and precipitation on a tropical
storm’s life cycle?
• To what extent are storm intensification processes predictable?
• How can we use NASA, NOAA and other countries’ satellite observations
innovatively and transition new algorithms, data, and tools to weather
forecast operations at our partner agencies?
NASA sponsored research continues to gain new insight into weather and extreme-
weather events by the utilization of data obtained from a variety of NASA- and partner
satellite platforms and hurricane field experiments. Major numerical weather prediction
(NWP) centers both outside (European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts
(ECMWF) and in the U.S. – NOAA/National Centers for Environmental Prediction
(NCEP), NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO), and the U.S. Navy –
have shown notable improvements from the assimilation of Atmospheric Infrared
Sounder (AIRS) data into their operational forecast systems.
An extra benefit of AIRS data assimilation at NWP centers is its use in establishing
readiness to assimilate data from other current and future operational instruments, as
has been demonstrated for the Crosstrack Infrared Sounder (CrIS) on the Suomi
National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) and Joint Polar Satellite System-1 satellites
launched in October 2011 and November, 2017, respectively. Recent advancement in
the Nation’s operational geostationary capability, especially the Advanced Baseline
Imager (ABI) and Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) on the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) – R series are of interest to the Weather
and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus Area. Currently NASA is prioritizing assimilating all-
sky radiance into GEOS-5 to take advantage of the GPM data.
The study and analysis of the dynamics of the atmosphere and its interaction with the
oceans and land is also an important component of the Weather and Atmospheric
Dynamics Focus Area. Improvement of our knowledge of weather processes and
related phenomena is crucial in gaining a better understanding of the Earth system.
Applying NASA Scientific remote sensing data such as from the Global Precipitation
Measurement (GPM) mission, GOES, ATMS, SMAP, and CYGNSS could lead to
improved retrieval algorithms, increased knowledge of atmospheric dynamical
processes, and assimilation of these measurements into NASA’s research
investigations, cloud and climate models, and quasi-operational weather models should

A.1-18
improve global weather prediction, climate change studies, and information on the
interactions within the Earth System.
Two major investments in the Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus Area form the
integrator and transition centers of research results in this area. Through collaborations
in the Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation (JCSDA) (https://www.jcsda.org),
observations from Suomi-NPP were assimilated into the operational weather forecast
systems in a record seven months after the satellite launch. Observation impact
analyses conducted with NASA Goddard Earth Observing System model, version 5
(GEOS-5) in the NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, showed that, in concert
with other observations, the Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS) and
CrIS have made positive impacts on a global integrated forecast metric.
On the short time scale, the NASA Short-term Prediction Research and Transition
(SPoRT) (http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/sport/) program is an end-to-end research-to-
operations (R2O) activity focused on improving weather forecasts through the use of
unique high-resolution, multispectral observations from NASA and NOAA satellites,
nowcasting tools, and advanced modeling and data assimilation techniques. The
SPoRT program has established a successful R2O paradigm in which the end-users
(mainly forecasters at NOAA/NWS forecast offices and National Centers) are involved
in the entire process. SPoRT also partners with universities and other Government
agencies to develop new products that are transitioned to applicable end user decision
support systems. SPoRT has recently succeeded in broadening its activities to other
National Weather Service (NWS) Regions and its active participation in NOAA Proving
Ground activities and Testbeds.
The ROSES elements most closely directed towards the Weather and Atmospheric
Dynamics Focus Area that are or may be soliciting for proposals in ROSES this year
are:
• Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics (program element A.22); and
• Earth Science Research from Operational Geostationary Satellites (program
element A.29).
Topics relevant to the Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus Area that are actively
or potentially soliciting in ROSES this year include the following program elements:
• Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science (program element A.24);
• Airborne Instrument Technology Transition (program element A.25);
• Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator (program element A.26);
• Making Earth System Data Records for use in Research Environments (program
element A.27);
• Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Sciences (program element A.28);
• PACE Mission Validation (program element A.30);
• Studies with ICESat-2 (program element A.32);
• ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team (program element A.33);
• Agriculture Applied Research Using Earth Observations (program element A.36);
• Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition New Vendor Onramp Evaluation (program
element A.43);
• Commercial SmallSat Data Scientific Analysis (program element A.44);

A.1-19
 • Advanced Component Technology (program element A.46);
• Applications-Oriented Augmentations for Research and Analysis (program
element A.51);
• Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science and Disaster Mitigation
(program element A.53); and
• Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences (program element F.2).
2.6 Earth Surface and Interior
The Earth Surface and Interior Focus Area promotes the development and application
of remote sensing to better understand core, mantle, and lithospheric structure and
dynamics, and interactions between these processes and Earth’s fluid envelopes. ESI
studies provide the basic understanding and data products needed to inform the
assessment, mitigation, and forecasting of natural hazards, including phenomena such
as earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, and volcanic eruptions. These investigations also
exploit the time-variable signals associated with other natural and anthropogenic
perturbations to the Earth system, including those associated with the production and
management of natural resources. The focus area is most closely related to the
"Surface dynamics, geological hazards and disasters" topic identified in the NASA
Science Plan. Space-based remote sensing is vital to forecasting in the solid Earth
sciences, providing a truly comprehensive perspective for monitoring the entire solid
Earth system. ESI seeks to address the questions:
1. What is the nature of deformation associated with plate boundaries and what are
the implications for earthquakes, tsunamis, and other related natural hazards?
2. How do tectonic processes and climate variability interact to shape Earth’s
surface and create natural hazards?
3. How does the solid Earth respond to climate-driven exchange of water among
Earth systems and what are the implications for sea-level change?
4. How do magmatic systems evolve, under what conditions do volcanoes erupt,
and how do eruptions and volcano hazards develop?
5. What are the dynamics of Earth’s deep interior and how does Earth’s surface
respond?
6. What are the dynamics of Earth’s magnetic field and its interactions with the rest
of Earth’s systems?
7. How do human activities impact and interact with Earth's surface and interior?
ESI's Space Geodesy Program (SGP) produces observations that refine our knowledge
of Earth’s shape, rotation, orientation, and gravity, advancing our understanding of the
motion and rotation of tectonic plates, elastic properties of the crust and mantle, mantle-
core interactions, solid Earth tides, and the effects of surface loading resulting from
surface water, ground water, glaciers, and ice sheets. SGP infrastructure enables the
establishment and maintenance of a precise terrestrial reference frame that is
foundational to many Earth missions and location-based observations.
Modeling, calibration, and validation are essential components in advancing the above
solid-Earth science objectives. ESI views natural laboratories as a critical component for
the validation and verification of remote sensing algorithms. For example, NASA joins
with the National Science Foundation (NSF) in support of the Geodetic Facility for the

A.1-20
Advancement of Geoscience (GAGE) initiative to maintain and operate a set of
foundational geodetic capabilities that are essential for current research efforts to
measure Earth changes with unprecedented spatial and temporal resolution, enabling
advances in our understanding of tectonic processes; earthquakes and tsunami;
magmatic processes; landslide hazards; continental water storage; atmospheric, ice
sheet and glacier dynamics; and interactions among these components of the Earth
system.
Among the many activities carried out by ESI are the following:
• Geodetic and thermal imaging of the precise metrology of Earth’s surface and its
changes through GNSS, lidar, radar constellations, and optical arrays, coupled
with geopotential field measurements to understand the dynamics of the Earth’s
surface and interior;
• Development of a stable terrestrial reference frame, highly precise realization of
topography and topographic change, and understanding of changes in the
Earth’s angular momentum and gravity fields, which can be applied to issues
such as sea-level change, polar mass balance, and land subsidence;
• Use of gravitational and magnetic observables for studying the inner dynamics of
the Earth, as well as for studies of how the ionosphere responds to changes in
the Earth’s surface; and
• Improved forecasts and early warnings for earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides,
and volcanic eruptions through the use of a broad range of Earth surface remote
sensing and space geodesy approaches.
The ROSES element most closely directed towards the Earth Surface and Interior
Focus Area that is soliciting for proposals in ROSES this year is:
• Earth Surface and Interior (program element A.23).
Topics relevant to the Earth Surface and Interior Focus Area that are actively or
potentially soliciting in ROSES this year include the following program elements:
• Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science (program element A.24);
• Airborne Instrument Technology Transition (program element A.25);
• Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator (program element A.26);
• Making Earth System Data Records for use in Research Environments (program
element A.27);
• Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Sciences (program element A.28);
• Studies with ICESat-2 (program element A.32);
• Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition New Vendor Onramp Evaluation (program
element A.43);
• Commercial SmallSat Data Scientific Analysis (program element A.44);
• Advanced Component Technology (program element A.46);
• Sustainable Land Imaging - Technology (program element A.48);
• Applications-Oriented Augmentations for Research and Analysis (program
element A.51);
• Earth System Science for Building Coastal Resilience (program element A.52);

A.1-21
 • Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science and Disaster Mitigation
(program element A.53); and
• Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences (program element F.2).
2.7 Cross-Cutting and Interdisciplinary
There are several cross-cutting and interdisciplinary elements in ROSES this year, all of
which have been identified as related elements to specific research focus areas in
Sections 2.1 through 2.6 (and also briefly summarized in the overview to Section 2).
These elements, all of which are being actively solicited in ROSES this year or are
being evaluated for possible solicitation, are:
• Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science (program element A.24) -
This program element allows for two types of proposals not normally solicited
through ROSES - (a) immediate research activity to take advantage of a target of
opportunity due to an unforeseen event in the Earth system, and (b)
exceptionally novel and innovative ideas to advance Earth remote sensing that
do not fit within ESD’s current slate of solicitations and or programs;
• Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator (program element A.26) – This
program element solicits for participation of U.S. investigators in satellite
missions carried out on a foreign space mission that address the Earth Science
Research Program objectives listed in the NASA Science Plan. Proposed efforts
must also facilitate access to data from assets of foreign space agencies.
• Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research Environments
(MEaSUREs) (program element A.27) - The overall objective of this element is to
enable projects providing Earth science higher level data products and services
driven by NASA’s Earth science goals. MEaSUREs may include infusion or
deployment of applicable science tools that contribute to data product quality
improvement, consistency, merging or fusion, or understanding. This ROSES
element provides an opportunity for the research community to participate in the
development and generation of data products, which complement and augment
the NASA produced and distributed Earth science data products available to the
research community and other stakeholders. Proposals responsive to this call
MUST utilize at least one satellite (preferably NASA sponsored) data set.
• Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Sciences (program element A.28) – This
solicitation is for new and successor interdisciplinary research investigations
within NASA’s Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Science (IDS) program.
Proposed research investigations will meet the following criteria: a) offer a
fundamental advance to our understanding of the Earth system; b) be based on
remote sensing data, especially satellite observations, but including suborbital
sensors as appropriate; c) go beyond correlation of data sets and seek to
understand the underlying causality of change through determination of the
specific physical, chemical, and/or biological processes involved; d) be truly
interdisciplinary in scope by involving traditionally disparate disciplines of the
Earth sciences; and e) address at least one of the specific themes listed in any
particular IDS solicitation.
• Earth Science Research from Operational Geostationary Satellite Systems
(program element A.29) – This announcement is to provide an opportunity for the

A.1-22
 earth science research community to develop additional products from the new
generation of operational geostationary satellites (e.g., Japan’s Himawari,
NOAA’s Global Operational Environmental Satellites) beyond those produced by
the operational agencies that implement them. These products could be for earth
system parameters not produced by those agencies, or could use algorithms
different from those currently used. The element also allows for the use of
currently produced and/or future operational geostationary satellite data to
address research questions till now addressed only with low earth orbit (LEO)
satellites.
• Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) Mission Validation (program
element A.30) – This program element will seek proposals to validate key PACE
measurements through coordinated efforts of in situ field bio-optical data
collection shortly after PACE’s first light, expected in the early spring of 2024.
The PACE mission has multiple scientific goals, including making climate-quality
global ocean color measurements that are essential for understanding the carbon
cycle and global ocean ecology and determining how the ocean’s role in global
biogeochemical (carbon) cycling and ocean ecology both affects and is affected
by climate change. The PACE observatory also includes bands for aerosol and
cloud studies, and, therefore, will extend key observations of atmospheric
properties, focusing on reducing the largest uncertainty in radiative forcing of the
Earth System.
• Studies with ICESat-2 (program element A.32) – This program element solicits
proposals for Earth science research using observations from the Ice, Cloud, and
land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2), which was launched in September, 2018.
While the primary focus of the satellite is to characterize elevation changes in
Earth’s polar ice, the mission acquires data globally, which allows independent
determination of vegetation height, and supports research in hydrology,
oceanography, atmospheric sciences, and other Earth and applied sciences.
• ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team (program element A.33) – This
element is to select a science team for the ECOSTRESS mission, which was
launched to the International Space Station on June 29, 2018. ECOSTRESS's
primary mission is to detect small changes in the temperature of plants to
measure evapotranspiration rates. It can use the same instrumentation to detect
changes in surface temperature associated with events such as volcanic
eruptions. ECOSTRESS observations have a spatial resolution of about 70x70
meters, which enables researchers to study surface-temperature conditions
down to the size of a football field. The mission can acquire images of the same
region at different times of the day. This is advantageous when monitoring plant
stress in the same area throughout the day, for example.
• Applications-Oriented Augmentations for Research and Analysis (program
element A.51) – This element is to provide an opportunity for currently funded
investigators in Research and Analysis (R&A) funded activities to augment
existing, currently-funded tasks to work across the traditional boundaries
between research and applications by adding end-user and stakeholder
engagement to existing work to support "research to applications" and/or
"applications to research" activities.

A.1-23
 • Earth System Science for Building Coastal Resilience (program element A.52) –
This element is to advance our understanding of key biogeophysical, geological,
hydrological, and ocean-influenced coastal processes and their interactions
within the interface of the ocean-land-human system, and to enhance our
understanding of how these processes will be compounded in rapidly changing
coastal environments. Proposed efforts would be expected to integrate efforts
from two or more disciplines such as such as coastal geology and geodesy,
hydrology, ocean physics, biology and biogeochemistry.
• Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science and disaster Mitigation
(“FireTech”, program element A.53) - The FireTech program enhances the
capabilities for existing science instruments for monitoring pre-fire, active-fire,
and post-fire situations, reduces the power and mass of these instruments, and
enables unprecedented observations in support of wildfire science through
distributed observing systems and the information technologies needed for their
support.
3. Applied Sciences
The Applied Sciences Program supports efforts to discover and demonstrate innovative
and practical uses of NASA Earth science information and modeling. The program
(http://AppliedSciences.NASA.gov/) develops knowledge on ways that Earth science
can inform decision making and serve society, increasing the benefits of the nation’s
investments in NASA Earth science. The Program funds applied science research and
applications projects to enable near-term uses of Earth science. Projects are carried out
in partnership with government agencies, businesses, and nonprofits to achieve
sustained uses of and measurable benefits from the Earth science information. The
projects collaborate to develop applications, integrate Earth science information and
model outputs into organizations’ decision-making and services, and transition
capabilities to the benefiting organizations for sustained use. The Program, thus, serves
as a bridge between the data and knowledge generated by NASA Earth science and the
information needs and decision making of public and private sector organizations.
The Applied Sciences Program’s elements include Water Resources, Health and Air
Quality, Agriculture, Disasters, Capacity Building, Ecological Forecasting, Climate
Resilience, Environmental Justice, and Wildfires. Applied Sciences projects leverage
products from across the NASA Earth Science Research Program, including results
described in other sections.
The ROSES elements most closely directed towards Applied Sciences that are or may
be soliciting for proposals in ROSES this year are:
• Agriculture Applied Research Using Earth Observations (program element A.36);
and
• Earth Science Applications: Ecological Forecasting (program element A.40).
Topics that may be relevant to Earth science applications that are actively or potentially
soliciting in ROSES this year include the following program elements:
• Carbon Monitoring System (program element A.6);
• Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science (program element A.24);

A.1-24
 • Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator (program element A.26);
• Making Earth System Data Records for use in Research Environments (program
element A.27);
• Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Sciences (program element A.28);
• PACE Mission Validation (program element A.30);
• Studies with ICESat-2 (program element A.32);
• ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team (program element A.33);
• Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition New Vendor Onramp Evaluation (program
element A.43);
• Commercial SmallSat Data Scientific Analysis (program element A.44);
• Advanced Component Technology (program element A.46);
• Sustainable Land Imaging - Technology (program element A.48);
• Applications-Oriented Augmentations for Research and Analysis (program
element A.51);
• Earth System Science for Building Coastal Resilience (program element A.52);
• Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science and Disaster Mitigation
(program element A.53); and
• Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences (program element F.2).
4. Technology
Advanced technology plays a major role in enabling Earth research and applications.
The Earth Science Technology Program (ESTP) enables previously infeasible science
investigations, improves existing measurement capabilities, and reduces the cost, risk,
and/or development times for Earth science instruments.
As the implementer of the ESTP, the Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) performs
strategic technology planning and manages the development of a range of advanced
technologies to enable new science observations or reduce the cost of current
observations. ESTO employs an open, flexible, science-driven strategy that relies on
competitive solicitations and peer-review to produce a portfolio of cutting-edge
technologies for NASA Earth science endeavors. This is done through:
• Planning investments by careful analyses of science requirements
• Selecting and funding technologies through competitive solicitations and
partnership opportunities
• Actively managing the progress of funded projects
• Facilitating the infusion of mature technologies into science measurements
Needs for advanced technology development are based on Earth science measurement
and system requirements articulated in the NASA Science Plan and the most recent
Decadal Survey covering NASA's Earth science activities, Thriving on our Changing
Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space, which was released on
1/5/2018 by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
(see https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24938/thriving-on-our-changing-planet-a-decadal-
strategy-for-earth). This 2018 Decadal Survey now serves as a foundational document
for NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD), and includes recommendations for the

A.1-25
scopes, foci, and relative budgetary magnitudes of the R&A, Applications, and
Technology portions of the ESD program.
The Earth Science Technology Office (http://esto.nasa.gov) maintains several program
lines through which technology investments are regularly competed through ROSES,
and that cover a range of technology readiness levels (TRLs). Currently, the Advanced
Component Technology Program and Sustained Land Imaging-Technology Program
will be solicited in ROSES this year, and a new wildfire-related program may also be
solicited this year:
• Advanced Component Technology (ACT) (program element A.46): The ACT
program develops a broad array of components and subsystems for instruments
and observing systems;
• Sustainable Land Imaging Technology Program (SLI-T) (program element A.48):
The SLI-T program develops technologies leading to new SLI instruments,
sensors, systems, components, data systems, measurement concepts, and
architectures in support of the nation's future SLI activities.
• Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science and Disaster Mitigation
(“FireTech”, program element A.53) - The FireTech program enhances the
capabilities for existing science instruments for monitoring pre-fire, active-fire,
and post-fire situations, reduces the power and mass of these instruments, and
enables unprecedented observations in support of wildfire science through
distributed observing systems and the information technologies needed for their
support.
Other ESTO programs that are periodically solicited are NOT being solicited in ROSES
this year:
• Instrument Incubator Program (program element A.45): The Instrument Incubator
Program (IIP) funds technology development that leads directly to new Earth
observing instruments, sensors, and systems. From concept through field
demonstrations and infusion, IIP developments yield smaller, less resource
intensive, and easier-to-build flight instruments;
• In-Space Validation of Earth Science Technologies (InVEST) (program element
A.47): The InVEST program provides a path for some new technologies to be
validated in space prior to use in science missions;
• Decadal Survey Incubation (program element A.49): The Decadal Survey
Incubation program develops and matures observing systems, instrument
technology, and measurement concepts for Planetary Boundary Layer and
Surface Topography and Vegetation observables through technology
development, modeling/system design, analysis activities, and small-scale pilot
demonstrations; and
• Advanced Information Systems Technology (program element A.50): The
Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST) program advances
technologies that enable: unique measurement collection capabilities through
distributed sensing; optimizing Science missions return on investment through
flexible information integration; and agile Science investigations through data
analytics and artificial intelligence tools and algorithms.

A.1-26
5. Earth Science Data Systems
NASA’s space observation capabilities are a central part of the Agency’s contribution to
Earth system science, along with the science information systems that compile and
organize observations and related data for research purposes. The Earth Science
Research Program has established a number of strategic principles for the development
and deployment of its observing and information systems, recognizing the importance of
providing active and informed stewardship for the large volumes of data that are
returned to Earth every day. The broad range of uses to which the data are put and the
large and diverse user community require multiple temporal and spatial scales,
emphasize the need for having a range of data products, and place stringent
requirements on NASA for its data processing, archival, and data dissemination
activities. These products and services will be variously useful to multiple classes of
users, from sophisticated scientific users to other Government and private sector
entities that use NASA’s information for policy and resource management decisions and
including scientifically attentive members of the public who utilize data and information
for general information and recreation.
The ROSES elements most closely directed towards Earth Science Data Systems that
are or may be soliciting for proposals in ROSES this year are:
• Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition New Vendor Onramp Evaluation (program
element A.43); and
• Commercial SmallSat Data Scientific Analysis (program element A.44).
Topics relevant to the Earth Science Data Systems Program that are actively or
potentially soliciting in ROSES this year include the following program elements:
• Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science (program element A.24);
• Making Earth System Data Records for use in Research Environments (program
element A.27);
• Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Sciences (program element A.28); and
• Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences (program element F.2).
Unless otherwise specified, any data proposed to be analyzed in response to Appendix
A program elements from any source, including NASA and other satellite data, ancillary
data, and data from commercial sources, must use publicly available data, in the sense
that these data are openly accessible. Commercial data need not be free, but it must be
purchasable by all potential investigators. Proposals that utilize any data that is not, or
not yet, publicly available will not be considered unless specifically permitted by the call
for proposals or associated Frequently Asked Questions. Please read the individual
appendices and associated amendments to ROSES carefully and contact the program
officers if you have any questions regarding whether a restricted dataset is permissible
for a given call.
Data, model results and other information created with NASA funding are subject to
NASA’s Earth Science Data policy (see http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/earth-
science-data/data-information-policy/ for the policy). All data will be released along with
the source code for algorithm software, coefficients, and ancillary data used to generate
products.

A.1-27
Proposers are encouraged to utilize data acquired by the Commercial SmallSat Data
Acquisition Program (CSDAP). The CSDAP program evaluates and procures data from
commercial vendors that advance NASA’s Earth science research and applications
activities. The scientific community may use data that have been previously acquired by
NASA for scientific purposes in adherence to vendor-specific terms and conditions.
Currently, data acquired during the evaluations of Planet, Maxar (Digital Globe) and
Spire Global are available, as are data from the Teledyne Brown Engineering DLR
Earth Sensing Imaging Spectrometer (DESIS). These products are available at no cost
to PIs and are subject to scientific use licenses. Please check the link that follows
regularly, for new data being added to the list as evaluations and procurements are
completed. For an up-to-date list of available data and associated licenses please
visit https://earthdata.nasa.gov/csdap.
6. Enabling Capability
Enabling capabilities include those programmatic elements that are of sufficient breadth
that they contribute to a broad range of activities within the Earth Science Research
Program. They typically involve the development of some kind of capability whose
sustained availability is considered to be important for the Earth Science Research
Program’s future. These include focused activities in support of education; data,
information, and management; and airborne science, as well as some broadly-based
technology-related elements (others which are very focused towards a single scientific
area of the Earth Science Research Program will be solicited through the research and
analysis area).
6.1 Education
The Earth Science Research Program recognizes its essential role in NASA's mission to
inspire the scientists and engineers of tomorrow. The Earth system science concept
pioneered by NASA is changing not only how science research is conducted, but also
the way Earth and space science education is taught at elementary through
postgraduate levels, as well as the way space exploration is presented to the public by
the media and informal learning communities.
Since 2016, the SMD Science Engagement and Partnerships Division has supported
the Science Activation Program (SciAct) to further enable NASA science experts and
content into the learning environment more effectively and efficiently with learners of all
ages. Proposers interested in this topic should look at (F.6) for more information.
The Earth Science Research Program continues its management of the Global Learning
and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE)
Program (https://www.globe.gov/) and oversight of the GLOBE Implementation Office
that is responsible for the coordination of the worldwide community in relation to GLOBE
science, education, evaluation, communication, and other common functions. It will also
continue to oversee the GLOBE Data and Information System. ESD welcomes
proposals that incorporate the use of GLOBE observations, where appropriate.
Observations can be accessed via the GLOBE Visualization System
(https://vis.globe.gov/GLOBE/) and the GLOBE Advanced Data Access Tool
(ADAT; https://datasearch.globe.gov/). Data can also now be accessed via the GLOBE
Application Programming Interface (API; https://www.globe.gov/globe-data/globe-api).

A.1-28
6.2 Graduate and Early-Career Research
The NASA Earth Science Division recognizes the importance of workforce enrichment.
To this end, the Earth Science Division sponsors the Earth science component of the
Future Investigators in NASA Earth and Space Science and Technology (FINESST)
program, which replaced the NASA Earth and Space Science Fellowship (NESSF)
program. FINESST supports graduate student-designed research projects that
contribute to SMD's science, technology, and exploration goals.
The opportunity to propose for the next school year was in ROSES-2021 and proposals
were due February, 2022. The opportunity to propose for the 2023/2024 school year will
be in program element F.5 of ROSES this year. It is anticipated that FINESST final text
will be released in November 2022, with proposals due in February 2023. Those
currently holding FINESST awards do not submit renewal proposals for their next year
of funding; rather they submit annual progress reports due in March.
The New (Early Career) Investigator Program in Earth Science (program element A.34),
which is directed towards scientists and/or engineers within six years of their receipt of a
Ph.D. degree, is solicited every three years. It is not being solicited in ROSES this year;
the next anticipated solicitation will be in ROSES-2023.
6.3 High-End Computing, Networking, and Storage
High-end computing, networking, and storage are critical enabling capabilities for Earth
system science. Satellite observations must be converted into scientific data products
through retrieval and/or data assimilation processes. Long-term data sets must be
synthesized together and become a physically consistent climate-research quality data
set through reanalysis. These data products, in turn, provide initial and boundary
conditions, validation and verification references, and internal and external constraints
to the models that describe the behavior of the Earth system. None of the above will be
possible without advanced techniques in high-end computing, networking, and storage.
SMD recognizes the need of such an enabling capability and maintains the high-end
computing, networking, and storage within its programs. Computing resources are
provided through various program elements. Over the past several years, computational
resources have become significantly constrained. Since 2016 SMD has implemented a
more rigorous resource allocation process. Proposals that would make use of NASA's
High-End Computing (HEC) Resources must follow the instructions given in Section I(e)
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation for generating and submitting a request via the
HEC Request Management System (RMS) at https://request.hec.nasa.gov. Save a PDF
copy of your request after submitting it using the button provided in RMS and then
attach that (as a separate file as type "Appendix") to your ROSES proposal (this is not
counted against the technical proposal page limit). The form includes a written
justification of how the computational resources would support the investigation and this
will be used during the proposal evaluation and selection processes. This justification
should include how the computational resources may support the investigation and a
multiyear resource-phasing plan, in annual increments, identifying the computing
system and facility location where the computational project will be accomplished for the
duration of the proposed award period. Proposers to this NRA must follow the

A.1-29
instructions in Section I(e) of the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA to request
computing resources, including explicit descriptions of computing resource needs.
NASA also supports computational science research and development, including
parallelization of codes to an advanced computing architecture for the advancement of
Earth system modeling and data assimilation.
In ROSES this year, no program elements specifically targeted towards High End
Computing, Networking, and Storage will be solicited.
6.4 NASA Earth Exchange
For large-scale global high-resolution Earth science data analysis and modeling
projects, especially in areas of land surface hydrology, land cover, land use, carbon
management, and terrestrial ecosystems, NASA encourages proposing teams to use
the NASA Earth Exchange (NEX; https://nasa.gov/nex). NEX is a collaborative
supercomputing and data analytics platform that enhances the availability and use of
Earth science data from NASA missions and other sources, including models, analysis
tools and research results. NEX is a centralized environment that fosters and enables
open-source science, knowledge sharing, collaboration, and innovation. NEX uses the
High-End Computing Capability (HECC) facility at NASA Ames Research Center
(https://nas.nasa.gov/hecc) as well as the commercial cloud providers. Large global
remote sensing datasets, such as Landsat, MODIS, AVHRR, ancillary datasets and
climate model outputs, such as the NEX-GDDP-CMIP6, are staged in the datapool for
easy user access. Recently, NEX has added two new collections for the research
community. These include, (1) a partial collection of data from operational geostationary
satellite platforms such as GOES 16/18, Himawari8 and GK2A. The facility also
maintains an exascale mass-storage system that allows users to archive and retrieve
important results quickly, reliably, and securely.
Proposing teams that desire to use NEX should include a section that describes their
need for NEX and specifies their data storage and processing needs. Proposers are
highly encouraged to contact the NEX team (https://nasa.gov/nex) when developing this
section of their proposal. Proposers must also include a data management plan as
described in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation Section 1. Resource availability will be
considered during the proposal review and selection process. Proposals that involve the
use of NEX must be submitted to the appropriate ROSES program element depending
on the science addressed by the proposed investigation. Additional recommended
information to include in proposals to use NEX is available at
https://nasa.gov/nex/access/.
In ROSES this year, no program elements directed towards the enhancement of NEX
are being solicited.
6.5 Airborne Science
The Earth Science Research Program airborne science program provides access to
airborne platforms that can be used to obtain measurements of the Earth. Airborne
platforms may be used to test new measurement approaches, collect detailed in situ
and remote sensing observations that are needed to better document and test models
of Earth system processes, and/or provide calibration/validation information for

A.1-30
satellites. Airborne platforms can also be an important part of training the next
generation of scientists, because students can be engaged in all aspects of scientific
investigations, from sensor development, through utilization, to completing analysis of
data obtained.
Aircraft have proven to be of significant value in Earth system science research,
particularly for investigation into atmospheric processes. NASA makes use of several
NASA-owned and supported aircraft including the DC-8, multiple G-III’s, a G-V, two ER-
2’s, and a P-3B. NASA also owns several other aircraft (i.e WB-57’s) which may be
available but are not ESD supported. In addition, several independently owned aircraft,
including, but not limited to, those operated by other Federal agencies and commercial
aircraft providers have been utilized in the past to support ESD airborne activities.
Proposers that utilize commercial aircraft service providers must ensure real time
position tracking of the aircraft and provide flight reports after the completion of flights.
Information regarding the utilization and reporting requirements of airborne assets to
support proposals can be found at https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/.
Proposals that require the acquisition of new airborne data may be submitted in
response to other active ROSES elements, unless otherwise specified in the element. In
any such cases, proposers are encouraged to contact the program manager indicated
prior to submitting such proposals.
The NASA Headquarters science concurrence is provided by the manager of the NASA
Research Program under which the grant or contract is issued. User fees are paid by
the investigator's funding source’s research program or directly from the investigator's
grant funds.
Any airborne science experiment using NASA assets, personnel, instruments, or funds,
must be in compliance with NASA Policy Directive 7900 and NASA Procedural
Requirement Series 7900. It is NASA policy that when utilizing other than NASA aircraft,
including foreign owned or leased aircraft, those aircraft are subject to the same
compliance requirements.
All participants in ESD Airborne activities will comply with all appropriate NASA
Procedural Requirements including medical qualifications for Qualified Non-
Crewmembers (QNC). Participants will be screened (in a timely fashion) by the
appropriate Center medical personnel to determine their readiness for QNC duties.

A.1-31
A.2 U LAND-COVER/LAND-USE CHANGE
NOTICE: This Land-Cover/Land-Use Change call emphasizes
expanding the number of hot spot areas to complement those
identified in the ROSES-2020 and ROSES-2021 selections, see Section
2(i). This year, this program element will use a two-step proposal
process, see Section 5.3.
1. U The Land-Cover/Land-Use Change Program
The primary goal of the NASA Land-Cover/Land-Use Change (LCLUC) program is to
use satellite observations for improving our understanding of LCLUC as an essential
component of Earth System Science. The LCLUC program includes studies that detect
and quantify changes in land cover and land use; examine their impact on the environment
and interactions with climate and society; and model future scenarios of LCLUC impacts.
The LCLUC program is developing interdisciplinary research combining aspects of
physical, social, and economic sciences, with a high level of societal relevance, using
remote sensing data, methods and tools. The LCLUC program aims to develop the
capability for annual satellite-based inventories of land cover and land use to
characterize and monitor changes at the Earth’s surface. Social and economic science
research plays an important role in the LCLUC program. It includes quantifying the
impacts of changes in human behavior at various levels on land use, land-use impacts
on society, and how the physical, social and economic aspects of land-use systems
adapt to climate change. LCLUC, ubiquitous worldwide, is having a significant impact on
the environment, the provision of ecosystem services, and human livelihoods at the
national, regional, or global scale, often with economic and policy implications. The
policy implications can, for example, be in terms of current policies that have prompted
or exacerbated land-use change, or policy changes that would lead to sustainable land-
use practices.
Additional information on the NASA LCLUC program can be found at
http://lcluc.hq.nasa.gov or by contacting Dr. Garik Gutman, the NASA Land-
34TU U34T

Cover/Land-Use Change Program Manager, see Section 6 below.

2. The Scope of This Program Element
Increasing demand for land is leading to significant land-cover and land-use changes
around the world. Changes in market forces and demand for agricultural products are
0T 0T

leading to changes in traditional agricultural land-use practices. Forest, woodlands and

wetlands continue to be converted to agriculture, pasture or urban built-up areas. Urban
expansion has been rapid and significant over the last few decades, as populations in
developing countries become increasingly urban. Suburban areas of the developed
world continue to expand. Changing land rights, ownership and policies are changing
land management. Land use in some regions is impacted by conflicts. On the other
hand, land use is adapting to the increased frequency of extreme weather events and a
warming climate. Coastal regions are under various pressures, including sea-level rise,
increasing ground water salinity, land reclamation for development, mangrove
destruction and recreational activities. Land use affects ecosystems, biodiversity,
carbon, nutrient and water cycles, and atmospheric composition. In turn, climate

A.2-1
variability, including changes in radiation and hydrological regimes, as well as socio-
economic changes, all impact land use.
Documenting LCLUC using satellite observations and understanding the causative
factors and impacts on the carbon cycle, water cycle, ecosystems and societal
processes are gaining importance. High-performance computing and increased
frequency and availability of moderate resolution and commercial very high-resolution
sensing systems enable enhanced monitoring and understanding of land-cover and
land-use change. The accurate reporting and analysis of the observed land-use
changes provide an opportunity to advance land-change science and inform land-use
policy.
Two topic elements are being solicited in this call: i) to continue identifying high-impact
LCLUC "hotspot" areas over particular geographic regions of interest around the globe,
where human-induced LCLUC is occurring at a landscape scale (of the order of 10,000
km 2 ); ii) to undertake research on land-use adaptation to climate change. The socio-
P P

economic component of the proposal, addressing the societal or economic impacts of

the hotspot changes identified or adaptation studied, is mandatory for this solicitation.
i) Land-Cover/Land-Use Change Hotspots
The LCLUC hotspot proposed for a study should have national to regional importance,
with significant impact and policy relevance. The LCLUC hotspots proposed must
complement rather than duplicate those identified in the ROSES-2020 and ROSES-
2021 selections. Prospective proposers may view the selections from ROSES-2020
here , and the selections from ROSES-2021 here . The proposal should analyze and
34T 34T 34T 34T

quantify the impact of the identified changes. Quantifying LCLUC and the socio-
economic impacts of change are vital aspects of land system science.
To summarize, the emphasis for this program element is on identifying hotspot areas
using multi-source data approaches and quantifying LCLUC and its impact on large
areas. The focus is on those changes that have a significant impact in terms of
ecosystem services and/or societal relevance. The broad land-use categories for the
hotspots studies that are of particular interest to the current solicitation are: agricultural
land-use practices (e.g., expansion, intensification or abandonment, expansion of
commodity crops); pasture and rangelands (e.g., expansion, degradation, or loss);
industrial land uses for resources extraction (e.g., mining and oil/gas), land use change
in wetlands (e.g. for urbanization, aquaculture or recreation).
ii) Land-Use Adaptation to Climate Change
The world is warming and climate norms are changing. The international process of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the future global temperature increase is
slow and regardless there will be a lag effect. This means that increased attention is
needed on how society can adapt and is adapting to climate change. Climate change is
impacting all land use sectors including: agriculture, forestry, the built landscape (urban,
peri-urban), rangelands, wetlands, recreation and conservation. Extreme weather is
causing land managers to change the way they are using the land and adopt more
resilient land-use practices (drought resistant crops, urban green space, low-flow
irrigation). In some cases such changes are necessary for economic viability (leaving

A.2-2
land fallow, increasing use of irrigation) or to avoid loss of life from fire or flooding. At
the same time federal and state agencies are establishing policies and incentives for
people to adopt land-management practices that help mitigate climate change (e.g. no-
till agriculture, carbon sequestration, etc.). In fire-prone landscapes and particularly at
the urban interface, programs are being implemented to reduce risk (e.g. controlled
burning and fuel reduction). In coastal regions, the increasing frequency of severe storm
events and rising sea level is causing local authorities to rethink coastal development.
The extent to which adaptation is taking place and its effectiveness are poorly
understood.
Satellite data, now available with sufficient temporal frequency and at very local to
global scales, can be used to monitor such land-use changes and understand the type
and extent of land-use adaptation. Attribution of the reasons for land-use change can be
challenging, as changes are also happening due to economic development and
population dynamics as well as unsustainable management practices that necessitate
land-use changes, for example due to insufficient water from depleted aquifers, salinity
from over-irrigation or stream pollution from nitrogen overuse. Land-use adaptation is an
area that has received little research attention, and there is a pressing need for science
that can inform policy and guide sustainable land management. In this call, we are
soliciting proposals that use satellite and ground data and models, when appropriate, to
address land-use adaptation related to climate change, with an emphasis on
fundamental research that can be developed to help inform policy.
3. Principles of the LCLUC program to be Reflected in Proposals
3.1 Remote Sensing Component
The NASA LCLUC program will only support proposals with a strong remote sensing
component. The use of observations and data products from U.S. and/or non-U.S.
Earth-observing satellites is a requirement for each proposal.
The increased availability of moderate resolution (≤30m) optical and microwave data,
Very High Resolution (VHR) commercial data (≤5m) and high-performance computing
is enabling multi-source monitoring capabilities to study land surface, estuarine, and
coastal processes as related to land-use change at regional to global scales. The
combined use of data from multiple sensors/satellites provides a means for enhanced
monitoring of LCLUC. The program supports data fusion from various U.S. and non-
U.S. moderate resolution sources (Landsat-class observations), with different spatial
and/or temporal resolutions and different parts of the solar and microwave spectra. The
data may include newly available sensors on-board of the International Space Station
(GEDI, ECOSTRESS, DESIS), as well as commercial VHR data that have already been
purchased by NASA, such as Planet Labs and MAXAR data that are available free of
charge at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center ( https://earthdata.nasa.gov/esds/small-
34T

satellite-data-buy-program ). Proposers should check the freely available commercial

34T

data prior to proposing any other new data that is only available with associated costs.
A variety of multispectral, hyperspectral, optical, infrared, lidar and radar data may be
integrated into the analysis, as needed. Proposers are encouraged to utilize the
available time-series record of VHR data that may extend for several years. The use of
data from non-U.S. sources, such as the European Space Agency's Sentinel or other

A.2-3
non-U.S. space agency programs that are freely available, is also welcome. For
example, the French-Israeli Venµs mission 5 and 10m data are available for registered
applicants on the following site:
https://theia.cnes.fr/atdistrib/rocket/#/search?collection=VENUS .
34T 34T

Proposals highlighting improved and novel methods of multi-resolution data fusion and
approaches are encouraged. Proposals need to include a description of the algorithm
approach and describe the product's preliminary validation with accuracy assessment.
Proposals including data acquisition, preprocessing, image interpretation, and accuracy
assessment for land-use and land-cover characterization, mapping and change analysis
should apply novel or state-of-the-art methods and techniques.
Special attention should be given to the dissemination of data and products associated
with the proposed research. In accordance with NASA’s principle of open science and
data ( https://science.nasa.gov/open-science-overview ), proposers should be willing to
34T 34T

work with LCLUC management to create metadata identifiers and help disseminate the
products through the NASA LCLUC website and NASA DAAC's.
3.2 The Role of Social and Economic Sciences in the NASA LCLUC Program
The LCLUC program includes studies that quantify land-cover and land-use changes;
examine their impact on the environment, climate, and society; or model future
scenarios of land-cover and land-use change and its various impacts and feedbacks.
Humans play an important role in modifying land cover and are instrumental in land-use
change. To understand the land-use drivers and impacts, the concurring social, cultural
and political processes must be considered. Socioeconomic processes need to be
integrated into each proposal, and include the identification of appropriate data at the
temporal and spatial resolution of the analysis. Studies can vary from the landscape to
regional to global scale, integrating multiple data sources as needed and understanding
LCLUC dynamics at multiple spatial and temporal resolutions. Local case studies that
document LCLUC trajectories, their causative factors or the socioeconomic impact are
welcome, but an example demonstrating that the method, analysis and outputs are
scalable to larger regions will be required.
3.3 Regional Foci and International Collaboration
The LCLUC program takes a regional approach to study changes that have regional to
global-scale impacts. The regions of interest for the hotspot program element are those
that do not show hotspots from the ongoing LCLUC studies. These are North America,
the eastern and southern parts of South America, central and western Africa, the
Mediterranean region including the coast of northern Africa, Australia-Oceania, and
Northern Eurasia including Europe, Caucasus, western and eastern Asia, Siberia and
the Arctic. Proposers are encouraged to explore the hotspot map on the LCLUC website
to see where unexplored areas are located ( https://lcluc.umd.edu/content/hot-spot-
34T

map ).34T

There are no specific regions of interest for the land-use adaptation studies. Proposals
should focus on those regions where adaptation is clearly identifiable and widespread.
In this context proposals will need to provide indication of adaptations taking place and
make a strong case for the region identified.

A.2-4
The successful proposals will, where appropriate, contribute to the international
program Global Observation of Forest Cover and Land Use Dynamics (GOFC-GOLD).
Proposers are encouraged to explore the existing regional GOFC-GOLD collaborations
(see https://gofcgold.org/) . The GOFC-GOLD Regional Information Networks rely on
34T 34T

the science developed by participating scientists. Science Teams selected from this
round will feed into the regional networks' new algorithms and data products developed
under the LCLUC Program, as appropriate. Specifically, Red Latinoamericana de
Teledeteccion e Incendios Forestales (RedLaTIF) network, the existing African
networks (MIOMBO, SAFNET, WARN and OSFAC) and a new potential North African
network (NAfRI) , the Mediterranean network (MEDRIN), the South-Central Eastern
Europe network (SCERIN), the Caucasus network (CaucRIN) and the Central Asian
network (CARIN) will be the relevant GOFC-GOLD networks for the hotspots
component of this solicitation. Proposals on Northern Eurasia should explore and make
use of previous results under the Northern Eurasia Earth Science Partnership Initiative
(NEESPI, currently NEFI; http://neespi.org ). For regional proposals, the LCLUC
34T 34T

program strongly encourages exploring the appropriate network(s) on the GOFC-GOLD

website and establishing collaborations with regional scientists with experience and
insights on the proposal topic. It is intended that such collaborations will strengthen the
research with local knowledge. Partnerships with non-U.S. researchers may be
developed following the guidelines and with the appropriate letters of support at Step-2.
These letters need to be signed by the collaborating institution authorities, which would
indicate agreement to participate in the project as proposed, with the necessary
institutional support to participate in the collaborative research and attend team
meetings. Step-2 proposals should identify an explicit collaboration with non-U.S.
partners, e.g., those working on non-U.S. sensor data or land-use experts for the
regions being studied. All else being equal, preference will be given to proposals that
include partnerships with international investigators. The rationale is that a U.S. PI
would benefit from the partners' experience in using non-NASA data or work on the
ground in the region of interest.
4. Eligibility and Expectations
NASA's policy welcomes the opportunity to conduct research with non-U.S.
organizations on a cooperative, no-exchange-of-funds basis. Although team members
employed by non-U.S. organizations are identified as part of a proposal submitted by a
U.S. organization, NASA funding may not be used to support research efforts by non-
U.S. organizations at any level, including travel expenses. Further information on foreign
participation is provided in Section III(c) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, ROSES
34T

FAQ #14 on this topic , and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
34T 0T 0T

Up to two paid Co-Is are allowed to enhance the interdisciplinary character of the
proposal and their role must be clearly explained. Unpaid Co-Is are discouraged.
Students and postdoctoral fellows may participate as supported team members.
Although regional collaborations are encouraged, the proposed research should not
include more than three collaborators.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to read the Guidebook for Proposers at
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocfo/gpc/regulations_and_guidance , particularly Appendix
34T 34T

D for the definitions of team member roles like Collaborator vs. Co-Investigator.

A.2-5
It is expected that proposals funded through this program element will result in peer-
reviewed publications quantifying high impact LCLUC around the world. In addition to
quantifying LCLUC and its impact, it is expected that the proposals will develop, test
and publish reproducible methods for studying LCLUC. In response to NASA’s renewed
emphasis on open science and open data, it is expected that PIs will make available
any data products generated under this research, following the data management plan
outlined in the proposal and given guidelines in A.1, the Earth Science Research
Overview.
The LCLUC program evaluates a proposal's responsiveness to the above aspects in
terms of meaningful integration of social and economic perspectives, methods, and data
(quantitative and/or qualitative) with innovative analyses of land system dynamics in the
proposed research. In this context, simple treatments of human dimensions, such as
mere correlations of socioeconomic variables in lieu of rich empirical analyses linked to
theorized social dynamics, or summary descriptions of potential societal or policy
benefits of the proposed study without demonstrable linkages to the same, are not
considered adequately responsive to the socioeconomic aspect of the program.
Proposals that include interviews of human subjects are expected, where appropriate,
to acknowledge the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process, as required by federal or
institutional policy to safeguard the welfare, rights and privacy of human subjects.
Successful proposals will fully integrate social and economic sciences into various
stages of the analysis – the research questions, the physical-social data harmonization
and the analytical approaches. Research should be built on a foundation that
acknowledges the complex connections between remote sensing observations of land-
cover with research on the human dimensions of land-use change. It is important that
proposers familiarize themselves with the existing literature and make a case for how
their proposal offers improved methods, advances interdisciplinary land-use science, or
could inform land-use policy.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to visit the LCLUC website to explore the previously
completed or currently funded projects on a particular subject that have already
produced relevant results and on geographic areas of interest. Where similarities in the
previous and proposed work exist, proposers should elaborate on what is novel about
the newly proposed work, as compared to what has been accomplished in the program
to-date.
Funded investigators will be expected to attend one NASA LCLUC Program Science
Team Meeting per year. They will also be expected to provide and periodically update
project team members’ information for the LCLUC website, as well as news items and
publications, associated with the funded research, and to contribute webinars when
requested. Proposers should check the freely available commercial data at
( https://earthdata.nasa.gov/esds/small-satellite-data-buy-program ) prior to proposing
34T 34T

any other new data that is only available with associated costs.
5. Programmatic Information
5.1 Period of Performance for Selected Proposals
Research awards will be for a three-year period of performance (or less) with annual
funding contingent upon satisfactory progress reporting and available funding.

A.2-6
5.2 Funding Available for Support of Selected Proposals
A total of approximately $3.5M per year for three years to fund about 14 proposals
(balanced between the two elements, depending on the quality and disciplinary/subject
diversity of the proposals submitted) is expected for this opportunity at NASA's Earth
Science Division. For information on the planned schedule for due dates, selections and
starting date for selected projects please see the Section 6 below.
A budget must be included for domestic travel to at least one LCLUC Science Team
Meeting in the Washington D.C. area per year. Sufficient international travel should be
included in the proposal budget for productive collaboration between U.S. investigators
and the non-U.S. partners. Involvement of local scientists from the selected region is
strongly encouraged. The intended international collaborators should be identified at
Step 1. Letters of endorsement from foreign partners, with financial commitments, must
be submitted along with the Step-2 proposals by the due date given in Tables 2 and 3 of
ROSES-2022.
5.3 The Two-Step Proposal Procedure
To streamline the proposal process and relieve the workload on the community of
interested applicants and those that help NASA in reviewing proposals, the LCLUC
program is using a two-step procedure for this solicitation. Step-1 proposals replace the
Notice of Intent (NOI). Step-1 proposals must be submitted electronically by the Step-1
Due Date (see Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES). Unlike an NOI, a Step-1 proposal is required
and must be submitted electronically by the Authorized Organizational Representative
(AOR). Proposers should refer to the "Instructions for Submitting a Step-1 Proposal"
under "Other Documents" on the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review
and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) page for this program.
NSPIRES will be open for the submission of Step-1 proposals starting ~30 days in
advance of the Step-1 Due Date. NASA will then internally review each Step-1 proposal
to determine whether or not the anticipated research project is considered of sufficient
merit to be competitive at Step 2, relevant to the program and responsive to the current
solicitation to warrant submission of a full Step-2 proposal. The Step-1 review process
will also take into consideration regional and topical diversity of the proposals. A
separate Step-1 proposal must be submitted for each intended (and thus
corresponding) Step-2 proposal.
No individualized feedback will be provided in response to Step-1 proposals. Instead,
proposers will be informed via NSPIRES whether their submission has been
encouraged or discouraged. Whether or not the Step-1 proposal is encouraged or
discouraged, proposers who submitted a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a Step-2
proposal. Submission of a Step-1 Proposal is, therefore, required to submit a Step-2
request. Step-2 proposals must contain the same scientific goals proposed in Step-1,
but the proposal team identified at Step-1 is not considered binding and (other than the
PI) can be adjusted in a Step-2 proposal. However, the submission of a Step-1 proposal
is not a commitment to submit a Step-2 proposal.
The NSPIRES system will guide proposers through the submission of all required
proposal information. Please note that the Proposal Summary, Business Data, Program

A.2-7
Specific Data, and Proposal Team are required Cover Page Elements for a Step-1
proposal. A budget should not be included with the Step-1 submission but will be
needed with a budget explanation at Step-2.
5.3.1 Step-1 Structure, Content and Format
Step-1 proposals must be provided as a PDF file not to exceed five pages, including any
references or citations. To facilitate the work by reviewers, the Step-1 proposal should
follow the structure below:
• Describe the proposed research, showing knowledge (in a couple of sentences with
references) of previous research carried out in the subject area by the international
scientific community, in general, and in the LCLUC Program, in particular (see
http://lcluc.hq.nasa.gov ).
34T 34T

• Emphasize responsiveness, indicating how the proposed project addresses the

call.
• Identify remote sensing assets, methods and socioeconomic science aspects in
the proposal.
• Identify new research aspects being proposed.
• Outline the expected outcomes of the research.
• Provide a tentative schedule for the research and deliverables.
The five-page limit for the S/T/M Section of the Step-1 proposals must include all
information necessary to evaluate the Step-1 proposal. The text of the proposal is
limited to four pages including any references or citations. One page of the allowed five
should be used for a brief bio and research experience of the PI, as it pertains to the
proposal, and the area of expertise of the proposed CoI’s.
5.3.2 Step-2 Content and Evaluation
Step-2 proposals should provide more detail, than in Step-1, on the previous studies
related to the research topic; the science question to be addressed; the rationale for the
study and the proposed research methodology; the anticipated results and deliverables;
and schedule. Step-2 proposals must include a budget and the associated explanation,
as described in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. For consistency and to ease
the burden of reviewing, it is preferable that Step-2 proposals follow approximately the
same structure as outlined for the Step-1 proposals expanded to 15 pages.
Step-2 proposals must be submitted electronically by the due date in full compliance
with the requirements specified in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Where the guidance differs, the order of precedence
for proposers is the following: this document takes precedence, followed by A.1, The
Earth Science Research Program Overview, followed by the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and, finally, the Proposer’s Guidebook. Proposers are strongly encouraged
to use the templates for the table of work effort and current and pending support that
34T 34T

have been provided by the Earth Science Division.

All proposals will be submitted to the NASA peer review process in accordance with the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation using the criteria as defined in Appendix D of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers with the following modifications:

A.2-8
In addition to the evaluation of relevance described in the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers, the evaluation of Relevance will include an assessment of the extent to
which the proposal successfully includes social and economic sciences, as described in
Section 3.2.
The inclusion of remote sensing is not an evaluation criterion but is a compliance
requirement: proposals that don't address remote sensing, as described in Section 3.1,
will be rejected without review.
The external peer-review will be followed by a programmatic review of the proposal, in
which NASA will assess program balance across the competitive range of proposals.
The funding recommendations will then be forwarded to the Selecting Official for
confirmation. NASA then will announce the official selection of proposals for award via
NSPIRES.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget ~ $3.5M
for new awards
Number of new awards pending ~14 (split between the two elements)
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 Proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of January 1, 2023
investigation
Page limit for the central Science- 5 pp; but see Section 5.3.1
Technical-Management section of
the Step-1 proposal
Page limit for the central Science- 15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary
Technical-Management section of of Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for
the Step-2 proposal Proposers.
Relevance This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA
General information and overview See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
of this solicitation
General requirements for content See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
of proposals Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4 of
34T 34T

submission of proposals the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section

34T 34T

IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.

Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.

A.2-9
Web site for submission of http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
34T 34T

proposals via NSPIRES at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-

34T 34T

Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program
9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-LCLUC
Garik Gutman
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-358-0260
Email: ggutman@nasa.gov
34T 34T

Krishna Vadrevu
On detail at NASA Headquarters,
Email: krishna.p.vadrevu@nasa.gov
34T 34T

A.2-10
A.3 U OCEAN BIOLOGY AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY
NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in
ROSES this year. The next expected solicitation of this element would
be in ROSES-2023.
1. Scope of Program
U U

NASA's Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry (OBB) program focuses on better

35TU U3 5T

understanding the ocean’s role in the Earth System, and predicting future causes and
impacts of change driven by Earth’s climate, the environment, and event scale
phenomena on ocean biology, biogeochemistry, and ecology. NASA utilizes remote
sensing data of aquatic properties, including those from space, aircraft, and other
suborbital platforms, as well as field studies and campaigns, and interdisciplinary data
assimilation and modeling efforts to describe, understand, quantify, and predict the
biological and biogeochemical regimes of the upper ocean. Ocean Biology and
Biogeochemistry research primarily supports the Carbon Cycle and Ecosystem Focus 35T

Area to address changes in Earth’s carbon cycle and ecosystems in order to improve
35T

understanding of the structure and function of global aquatic ecosystems, their

interactions with the atmosphere, terrestrial, and cryospheric systems, and the ocean’s
role in the cycling of the major biogeochemical elements.
Appendix A.1, the Earth Science Research Overview, provides an overview of how the
Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program fits into the Earth Science Division within
NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. Program goals and objectives for the coming
decades can be found in the 2008 Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program’s
35T

advance plan . 35T

The Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program supports a number of Presidential

mandates and associated Federal research objectives, such as the Executive Order on 35T

Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad , which calls for the need to further 35T

science and take action to address the climate crisis. In addition, the NASA OBB
program supports the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and its
strategic plan , which address aspects of Carbon Cycle and Ecosystem research from
35T 35T

space, with a focus on understanding Earth’s aquatic environment and its role within the
Earth System. The program is also responsive and supports priorities identified in the
SOST report Science and Technology for America’s Oceans: A Decadal Vision . This
35T 35T

vision identifies five goals to advance U.S. ocean science and technology and the
nation in the coming decade; Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program research
will utilize space-based observations and provide new suborbital observations that
support the identified goals, furthering our understanding of the ocean’s role in the Earth
System in support of a blue economy, management, and policy for societal benefits.
Research developed under the OBB program is anticipated to support the Global Ocean
Observing System (GOOS) Essential Ocean Variables (EOV) defined by the
Biogeochemistry and Biology and Ecosystems panels, all of which specify remote
35T 35T 35T 35T

sensing as a critical tool in Earth System Research. The OBB program also supports
the International Ocean Color Coordinating Group (IOCCG) scientific objectives as
35T 35T

appropriate, in support of the Committee on Earth Observing Satellites (CEOS).

35T 35T

A.3-1
2. Point of Contact
Laura Lorenzoni
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1709
Email: laura.lorenzoni@nasa.gov
35T 35T

A.3-2
A.4 SCOPING STUDIES FOR THE NEXT TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY FIELD CAMPAIGN
NOTICE: Amended July 28, 2022. Section 6.3, describing evaluation
criteria, has been corrected and updated. New text is in bold and
deleted text is struck through. The due dates for this program have
been delayed. Proposals NOIs are requested by October 25, 2022, and
proposals are now due January 11, 2023.
Proposers must use the standard Earth Science template for level of
work effort and current and pending support (see Section 5). No Data
Management Plan is required.

Table of Contents
1. NASA's Terrestrial Ecology Program ...................................................................... 1
2. Scope of Solicitation ................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Scoping Study Objectives .................................................................................2
2.2 Proposals Requested........................................................................................3
2.3 Stakeholder Engagement and Decision Support .............................................4
2.4 Diversity and Inclusion ......................................................................................5
3. Previous Large-Scale Terrestrial Ecology Field Campaigns ................................. 5
3.1 Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (BOREAS) ...........................................5
3.2 Large-Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia (LBA) .............5
3.3 Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE)..............................................6
4. Relevance to NASA Earth Science Research Priorities ........................................ 6
5. Table of Work Effort and Current and Pending ...................................................... 7
6. Programmatic Information ....................................................................................... 7
6.1 Eligibility.............................................................................................................7
6.2 Available Funds, Budget Profiles, and Periods of Performance......................8
6.3 Proposal Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................8
7. Summary of Key Information................................................................................... 8

1. NASA's Terrestrial Ecology Program

The NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program uses surface, airborne, and space-based
observations to understand how Earth’s carbon cycle and terrestrial ecosystems
respond to environmental change and human interventions. This improved
understanding is gained by combining observations with advanced data analysis
techniques and ecosystem process modeling. The goal of the Terrestrial Ecology
Program is to improve our understanding of (1) the structure, function, and productivity
of terrestrial ecosystems across the globe, (2) the spatial and temporal variability of
ecosystem states and processes; (3) the interaction of these ecosystems with the
atmosphere and hydrosphere, and (4) the role that these ecosystems play in the cycling
of the major biogeochemical elements and water. This improved understanding allows

A.4-1
us to develop a capability to diagnose and predict the response of terrestrial
ecosystems to environmental change.
The NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program seeks to strengthen the theoretical and
scientific basis for measuring the properties of Earth’s vegetation using reflected,
emitted, and scattered electromagnetic radiation and develop the methodologies and
technical approaches required to analyze and interpret such measurements. These
activities will ultimately provide a foundation for the new remote sensing capabilities
needed to understand and monitor terrestrial ecosystems at regional to global scales.
All investigators associated with successful proposals from this program element will
become members of the NASA Terrestrial Ecology community. Membership in the
NASA Terrestrial Ecology community includes the responsibility to serve on NASA Peer
Review Panels.
2. Scope of Solicitation
2.1 Scoping Study Objectives
NASA’s Terrestrial Ecology Program has a long and rich history of successfully
mounting intensive field campaigns (see Section 3). These field campaigns have been
aimed at exploiting the synergistic benefits of multidisciplinary science focused on a
specific science question or set of science questions. These science questions are
addressed using satellite and airborne remote sensing observations in combination with
surface and near-surface measurements of smaller scale features and processes. Such
field experiments use an integrative modeling framework to synthesize and scale the
results across space and time. NASA Terrestrial Ecology field campaigns focus the
community’s attention on (a) answering big science questions targeted on important
regions or biomes; (b) enabling more effective interpretation and analysis of space-
based measurements; (c) fostering collaborative interactions and building new
relationships within the scientific community; (d) providing valuable opportunities for
training and educating the next generation of scientists; and (e) leaving a legacy data
set of great value for future research.
The ideas and strategy for field campaigns have usually arisen from within the research
community – often as a result of discussions among current NASA-funded researchers
working on related research questions or through the committees and working groups of
national and international programs.
This opportunity requests scoping studies that will (1) identify the scientific questions,
(2) develop an initial study design; (3) and propose an implementation concept for a
new NASA Terrestrial Ecology field campaign that could be implemented on a six- to
nine-year time frame. This solicitation offers resources to facilitate such planning and
provides an opportunity to design a major, yet logistically feasible, initiative that
advances the Terrestrial Ecology Program’s research goals and makes use of NASA’s
unique capabilities to mount well-coordinated projects that use satellite and airborne
remote sensing as a central element. Examples of the objectives and scope of previous
campaigns are provided in Section 3. An important element of any field campaign must
be the synthesis of the observations into a diagnostic and predictive capability that
helps us to better understand the role of terrestrial ecosystems in climate change.

A.4-2
The proposed scoping studies should build on the NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program’s
history of conducting intensive, multidisciplinary, large-scale field campaigns. This
solicitation is open to scientists with or without past experience in the NASA Terrestrial
Ecology Program. Indeed, a productive mix of early career, mid-career, and senior
scientists has been, and will continue to be, an important characteristic of NASA
Terrestrial Ecology field campaigns. Proposals can identify new ecosystems, biomes or
regions that merit intensive investigation or expand on and/or revisit previous efforts.
This solicitation also welcomes proposals that leverage alternative models for
conducting field campaigns such as studying long gradients that integrate multiple
ecosystems, or a network of smaller campaigns that are distributed or targeted to
answering overarching high impact science questions.
Regardless of the field campaign approach, proposals should identify high impact
scientific questions that require a major investment in time and resources to advance
terrestrial ecology, biogeochemistry, and related sciences. The scoping studies should
focus on critical biomes and/or regions that are of importance to understanding the
potential feedbacks between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems with the atmosphere in
the context of global change. Such field campaigns also aim to better prepare the
science community to make use of NASA’s future satellite data, such as that from the
upcoming NASA Earth System Observatory constellation to advance the scientific
objectives of the Terrestrial Ecology Program. The future field experiment is not
intended for technology demonstrations. However, the use of innovative remote sensing
to answer key scientific questions is strongly encouraged. The timeline for the
implementation of the field campaign will depend on the availability of resources and
therefore, proposals should be flexible regarding the implementation schedule.
Nevertheless, proposals should contain a notional schedule, e.g., Year 1, Year 2, etc.
2.2 Proposals Requested
We seek proposals to conduct scoping studies over a period of 12 months. The main
deliverable will be a scoping report that lays out the scientific issues at stake, the
logistical framework, and one or more paths forward toward implementation. Scoping
studies will be required to address the following elements:
1. The science questions and issues;
2. The current state-of-the-science;
3. The potential for a major, significant scientific advancement;
4. The central, critical role of NASA remote sensing;
5. The essential scientific components of the study and why coordinated teamwork
is required in their implementation.
6. An overall study design identifying the required observational (e.g., spaceborne,
airborne, and/or supporting in situ observations) and analytical (e.g., models,
data, and information system) infrastructure;
7. The feasibility of the proposed project, both technical and logistical;
8. The engagement of the broader research community to seek feedback on the
ideas, to assess interest, and to foster diversity and inclusion;
9. The disciplinary skills needed to conduct the study and engage potential
partners in their planning activities.

A.4-3
 10. Potential use of results for applications and decision support.
Proposals should make an initial attempt to address the above issues so that NASA can
evaluate the promise and potential of the proposed scoping studies.
Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation should explain how data
management considerations will be addressed during the scoping study. NASA
Terrestrial Ecology field campaigns must be committed to NASA’s Earth Data and
Information Policy, NASA Open Science Philosophy, and NASA’s Open Data, Services,
and Software Policy.
While the focus should be on Terrestrial Ecology Program goals and objectives, it is
clear that past successful field campaigns and related projects have involved
interdisciplinary research questions and scientists trained in a number of different
disciplines. Past campaigns have also involved interagency and/or international
partnerships. Thus, scoping studies should identify the disciplinary skills needed to
conduct the study and engage potential partners in their planning activities.
While proposers will be free to develop their own work plan, it is anticipated that a
typical scoping study might support the activities of a small planning/writing group and
one or more community workshops. The scoping studies funded through this solicitation
are expected to be team efforts. The planning team (PI and co-investigators) need not
be large, e.g., 2 to 6 people would be reasonable. The budget for workshop(s) should
be separately explained and justified in the budget section of the proposal and may
include travel costs for attendees.
Scoping studies must produce a written report that provides the scientific rationale and
an initial study design concept for a new field campaign or related team project. While
this report need not be lengthy, it must include a thorough presentation of science
questions, goals, and objectives; the underlying rationale in terms of state-of-the-art,
relevance, and expected advances; implementation concepts; and other information to
enable NASA to fully evaluate the project. Examples of two previous scoping studies
are provided here (click on final reports).
2.3 Stakeholder Engagement and Decision Support
A description of stakeholders and the approach to stakeholder engagement should be a
part of the scoping study. Consequently, proposals should succinctly describe how
researchers will interact with and/or develop partnerships with stakeholders pertinent to
their investigation. Stakeholders may include the people and/or institutions where the
field campaign will take place as well as other interested parties. Stakeholders may
include Indigenous/aboriginal peoples on whose land the research might take place, as
well as others with land ownership/usage rights; local communities; local, regional, and
national government organizations; and partner organizations with specific decision
support needs.
While the NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program focuses on advancing the fundamental
science necessary to understand how ecosystems function on regional to global scales
and how they might change in the future, we are also interested in applications of the
knowledge gained to provide decision support for policy and other applications that
could be useful to entities involved with the management of natural resources.

A.4-4
Proposals should describe the applications potential of the proposed scientific activities.
If there is no potential for applications, proposals should state as such.
2.4 Diversity and Inclusion
NASA recognizes and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive scientific,
engineering, and technology communities and expects that such values will be reflected
in the composition of field campaigns. Discrimination and harassment are not tolerated
at NASA. Having a diverse, inclusive, and safe workplace is essential to achieving the
excellence for which NASA strives. In support of NASA's core value of Inclusion,
proposals must describe how the scoping study and the subsequent field campaign will
create and maintain a diverse and inclusive team. Proposals should briefly describe any
planned surveys or evaluations, training to be offered or required, codes of conduct to
be developed and followed, mentoring or professional development activities offered,
and planned management practices. The proposal should also describe any plans to
broaden participation with unrepresented or under-represented groups. Engagement of
minority serving institutions in workshops and planning is strongly encouraged.
Proposers seeking to enjoy the benefits of a more diverse team may consider, for
example, referring to the NASA Minority Serving Institution (MSI) Exchange at
https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/ as place for proposers to find participants on their
proposals.
3. Previous Large-Scale Terrestrial Ecology Field Campaigns
Below are a few examples of major field campaigns that have been supported and/or led
by the NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program.
3.1 Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study
The Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (BOREAS) (1992-1999) was a large-scale
interdisciplinary field experiment in the boreal forests of Canada. Its goal was to improve
our understanding of boreal forests -- how they interact with the atmosphere, how much
CO2 they can store, and how climate change will affect them. BOREAS used satellite
data to monitor forests and to improve computer simulation and weather models.
BOREAS helped the NASA Terrestrial Ecology community prepare for the application of
Earth Observing System data, particularly MODIS data, to boreal forests. The large-
scale study area for BOREAS was a 1000 x 1000 km area covering most of
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada. Within that region were two specific study areas
-- the Northern Study Area (NSA) in Thompson Manitoba, and the Southern Study Area
(SSA) in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. BOREAS involved Intensive Field Campaigns in
1994 and 1997 during which multi-scale surface, tower, aircraft, and satellite
observations were made. BOREAS was the first time that multiple eddy covariance flux
towers were deployed in a coordinated manner. Some BOREAS results are available
here and here.
3.2 Large-Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia
The Large-Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia (LBA) (1998-2011)
was an intensive scientific investigation of the tropical rainforest of Brazil and portions of
adjacent countries. LBA used remote-sensing techniques and ground-based

A.4-5
experiments to investigate the atmosphere-biosphere-hydrosphere dynamics of this
large tropical region. The overarching science questions for LBA were: (1) How does
Amazonia currently function as a regional entity? (2) How will changes in land use and
climate affect the biological, chemical and physical functions of Amazonia, including the
sustainability of development in the region and the influence of Amazonia on global
climate?
The LBA Project, led by Brazil, encompassed several components. The NASA-
sponsored LBA-ECO component focused on specific questions regarding the role of
terrestrial ecosystems in the Amazon and was the primary focus of NASA’s Terrestrial
Ecology Program. The science questions included the following: How do tropical forest
conversion, regrowth, and selective logging influence carbon storage, nutrient
dynamics, trace gas fluxes, and the prospect for sustainable land use in Amazonia?
What is the role of old growth tropical forests in the regional and global carbon cycle?
What are the potential effects of Amazon deforestation on the water and energy budget
of the region? LBA-ECO involved measurements by eddy covariance flux towers, forest
sampling plots, atmospheric sampling, experimental manipulations, and satellite remote
sensing. Some results from LBA and LBA-ECO are summarized here and here.
3.3 Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment
The Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) (2015-2024) is a NASA Terrestrial
Ecology Program field campaign that is being conducted in Alaska and western Canada
(see Study Domain). ABoVE is a large-scale study of environmental change and its
implications for social-ecological systems. ABoVE’s science objectives are broadly
focused on (1) gaining a better understanding of the vulnerability and resilience of Arctic
and boreal ecosystems to environmental change in western North America, and (2)
providing the scientific basis for informed decision-making to guide societal responses
at local to international levels. ABoVE research links field-based, process-level studies
with geospatial data products derived from airborne and satellite sensors, providing a
foundation for improving the analysis and modeling capabilities needed to understand
and predict ecosystem responses and their societal implications.
ABoVE resulted from a 2008 solicitation by the NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program for
scoping studies (white papers) for a new field campaign. The final report of the scoping
study can be found here. Subsequently, a workshop was held, a Science Definition
Team was formed, and the ABoVE Concise Experiment Plan was produced.
Solicitations for pre-ABoVE data product creation were released in 2012 and 2013. The
Solicitation for Phase 1 was released in 2014; for the Airborne Campaign in 2016; for
Phase 2 in 2018; and for Phase 3 in 2021. The ABoVE Implementation Plan is a living
document that describes the implementation of the ABoVE research projects. Some
results from ABoVE are described here and here. The detailed timeline for the
development of ABoVE can be found here.
4. Relevance to NASA Earth Science Research Priorities
The overall goals of NASA's Earth Science program are documented in the NASA
Science Mission Directorate 2020-2024 Science Plan and NASA 2018 Strategic Plan.
NASA Earth Science research focuses on using space-based observations to safeguard
and improve life on Earth. These space-based observations are often supplemented

A.4-6
with other types of observations (e.g., aircraft and/or surface measurements) and then
combined and synthesized in models. Coordinated large-scale Terrestrial Ecology field
campaigns make significant contributions to understanding the role of terrestrial
ecosystems in climate change and thus make a significant contribution to NASA Earth
Science.
Large-scale field campaigns contribute toward the goals of the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP) for improved understanding of the changing Earth
system through observations, modeling, and process studies, as well as changing
patterns of extreme events and potential tipping points in the natural and human
systems. Large-scale field campaigns can also contribute to USGCRP’s goals to
expand research into inter-connected natural and managed systems to inform decision-
making about adaptation, mitigation, and environmental justice issues related to global
change.
The Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems and Natural Resources Management Panel of
the 2017 Decadal Survey for Earth Science and Applications from Space (ESAS) of the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) Thriving on Our
Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space identified
several science and application questions essential to understanding how
environmental change impacts ecosystems and how this may affect the services they
provide, and how the structure of these ecosystems affects the fluxes of carbon,
nutrients, and energy between and across the components of the Earth system. NASA
expects future field campaigns to contribute to advancing the goals of the current and
future Earth Science Decadal Surveys by conducting research that helps prepare for the
new observation capabilities expected to become available. A future NASA Terrestrial
Ecology field campaign should help NASA use the future Earth System Observatory,
particularly the NISAR and SBG missions, to answer important scientific questions
regarding the role of terrestrial ecosystems in climate change, sustainable development,
and biodiversity conservation.
5. Table of Work Effort and Current and Pending
Proposers must use the standard Earth Science templates to detail project participants’
levels of work effort in the scoping studies and current and pending support. The Work
Effort table must be placed immediately following the Biographical Sketches (Curriculum
Vitae). Co-investigators should include only those people expected to play a significant
role in the scoping study beyond simple attendance at a workshop.
6. Programmatic Information
6.1 Eligibility
This program element is open to all categories of institutions. Proposals from non-U.S.
organizations may propose to participate on a no-exchange-of-funds basis.
Collaborations between researchers at U.S. and non-U.S. organizations are welcome,
but the portion of work to be conducted by the non-U.S. institution must be funded
through other sources to comply with NASA's no-exchange-of-funds policy. For more
information see the ROSES FAQ on this topic.

A.4-7
6.2 Available Funds, Budget Profiles, and Periods of Performance
Funding available for this entire program element is approximately $400K to $500K/year
over a maximum 12-month period. NASA expects to support up to two scoping studies
($200K to $250K/each).
6.3 Evaluation Criteria [Amended July 28, 2022]
Proposals are evaluated according to the three default criteria (Merit, Relevance, and
Cost) defined in Appendix D the 2022 NASA Guidebook to Proposers and applied as
described in Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Clarifications
of those criteria, as they apply to this particular program element, appear below.
Intrinsic scientific merit addresses the overall scientific merit of the proposal, including
the quality of both the idea and its implementation. It accounts for the extent and
quality to which the proposal addresses the ten elements described in Section 2.2 of
this program element, as well as the compelling nature of the scientific questions and
the feasibility of the proposed field experiment. Relevance accounts for the extent to
which the proposed scoping study will advance the goals of the NASA Terrestrial
Ecology Program and NASA Earth Science. It also evaluates the feasibility of the
proposed field experiment. Cost reasonableness evaluates whether the proposed level
of effort (i.e., labor FTEs) and the other proposed direct costs (i.e., supplies, equipment,
travel) are commensurate with those required to accomplish the goals of the proposal.
In addition to responsiveness to the goals, objectives, and requirements described in
this program element, the assessment of a proposal’s relevance shall take into account
the degree to which the investigation will contribute to an understanding of large-scale
responses of social-ecological systems to environmental change.
7. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for ~$200K to $250K/year for 12 months
first year of all new awards
Expected number of new awards 1 to 2
Maximum duration of awards 12 months
Due date for notice of intent See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
(NOI) to propose
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of the ~ 9 to 12 months after proposal due date
investigations
Science/Technical/Management 15 pages maximum.
section page limit
This program element is relevant to the Earth
Science questions and goals in the NASA Science
Relevance
Plan. Proposals relevant to this program element
are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
overview of this solicitation

A.4-8
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding Opportunity Number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of Contact, both of whom
share this address:
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of ROSES-
2022.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (Help Desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-TE
Hank Margolis
(202) 295-7075
hank.a.margolis@nasa.gov
Michael Falkowski
(202) 826-7498
michael.falkowski@nasa.gov
A.4-9
A.5 U CARBON CYCLE SCIENCE
NOTICE: The Carbon Cycle Science program will not solicit proposals
in ROSES-2022. All funds currently available for a dedicated carbon
cycle science opportunity are committed to the support of awards
selected through the 2020 Carbon Cycle Science solicitation. NASA
expects to solicit carbon cycle science research proposals in ROSES-
2023. Interested researchers are encouraged to consult other program
elements in the core research and analysis programs, in particular the
Terrestrial Ecology, Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry, Land Cover
and Land Use Change, and Atmospheric Composition programs for
other potential funding opportunities related to carbon cycle research.
1. U Scope of Program
NASA’s Carbon Cycle Science research opportunity is offered every three years. The
NASA Earth Science Program goals for Carbon Cycle Science are to improve
understanding of the global carbon cycle and to quantify changes in atmospheric CO 2 R R

and CH 4 concentrations, as well as terrestrial and aquatic carbon fluxes and storage in
R R

response to fossil fuel combustion, land use and land cover change, and other human
activities and natural events. NASA carbon cycle research encompasses multiple
temporal and spatial scales and addresses atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic carbon
stocks and fluxes, their coupling within the global carbon cycle, and interactions with
climate and other aspects of the Earth system. Observations from space provide a
platform for NASA carbon cycle research; they contribute toward the goals of major U.S.
Global Change Research Program ( USGCRP ) activities, including the Carbon Cycle
28TU U28T

Science program’s U.S. North American Carbon Program ( NACP ) and the Ocean 28T 28T

Carbon and Biogeochemistry ( OCB ) program. NASA carbon cycle research also
28T 28T

contributes toward the goals of the Office of Science and Technology Policy , the Ocean
28T 2 8T

Policy Committee, and the related activities of its member federal agencies.
2. Point of Contact
Laura Lorenzoni
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0917
Email: laura.lorenzoni@nasa.gov
28T 28T

A.5-1
A.6 U CARBON MONITORING SYSTEM: CONTINUING PROTOTYPE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE: Amended July 21, 2022. The proposal due date for this
program element has been delayed to October 28, 2022. Notices of
intent are still requested by August 2, 2022.
Proposers must use the Earth Science Division's standard template
32TU

for work effort and current and pending support . U32T

1. Scope of Program
The NASA Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) is a forward-looking initiative designed to
make significant contributions to characterizing, quantifying, understanding, and
predicting the evolution of global carbon sources, sinks, and fluxes through improved
monitoring of terrestrial and aquatic carbon stocks and fluxes. Initially implemented in
response to language in NASA’s 2010 Congressional Appropriation, this program is
now considered to be an important part of NASA’s Carbon Cycle and Ecosystem focus
area, and as presently implemented, supports research and coordinates projects for the
development of prototype carbon monitoring systems.
NASA’s approach toward a carbon monitoring system has emphasized exploitation of
current and future satellite remote sensing resources, computational capabilities,
scientific knowledge, airborne science capabilities, and end-to-end system expertise
that are major strengths of the NASA Earth Science program. Significant effort is being
devoted to rigorous evaluation of the carbon monitoring products being generated, as
well as to the characterization and quantification of errors and uncertainties in those
products. The initial emphasis has been on regional, national, and global satellite-based
carbon monitoring products relevant to national needs for completely transparent
carbon and terrestrial biomass inventory processes that provide statistical precision and
accuracy with geospatially explicit associated attribute data. NASA’s approach
considers data and expertise that are the domain of other U.S. Government agencies
and anticipates continuing close communication and/or partnerships with those
agencies and their scientific and technical experts as U.S. national efforts toward
integrated carbon monitoring mature.
NASA also recognizes a need for complementary local-scale (airborne and in-situ)
information to demonstrate quantitative remote sensing methods to evaluate carbon
source, sink, and flux estimates to aid in scaling up from project, county, and/or state
levels on land and within different aquatic regions and for essential evaluation of
regional-, national-, and global-scale carbon monitoring products. Such work is critically
important for advancing research capabilities toward an understanding of Earth’s carbon
cycle that is relevant for decision-making communities. Additionally, the current
approach lays the groundwork for CMS-related applications of NASA and non-NASA
satellite sensors currently on orbit (i.e., Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2); ESA’s
Sentinel 5-Precursor; ECOSTRESS; Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2; Global
Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation; and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3) and
missions in development or formulation (i.e., Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, and ocean
Ecosystem (PACE); NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR); ESA’s Earth
Explorer Biomass and FLuorescence EXplorer (FLEX) mission, the Geosynchronous
Littoral Imaging and Monitoring Radiometer (GLIMR) and the upcoming Earth System

A.6-1
Observatory, which includes the Surface Biology and Geology designated observable).
Accomplishments-to-date include the development of a continental U.S. terrestrial
biomass data product and a global carbon flux product; demonstrations of local- and
regional-scale carbon management projects; improvement of the CMS biomass and flux
products; refinement and quantification of carbon in tropical peatlands relevant to "blue
carbon", assessing changes in terrestrial-ocean carbon fluxes and investigating global
ocean CO2 fluxes, and engagement of carbon monitoring stakeholders to better
understand their needs for carbon data and information products. Projects supported by
CMS have developed CMS-Flux, one of the most advanced carbon data assimilation
systems in the world, which integrates satellite and surface observations related to
anthropogenic, oceanic, terrestrial, and atmospheric carbon. For more information about
the projects that have been funded through CMS, see the CMS website
(https://carbon.nasa.gov/) and relevant links listed on that page (e.g., publications,
documents).
NASA has established a Carbon Monitoring System Science Team (CMS ST) that will
include members from all NASA CMS investigations. The CMS ST is responsible for
providing broad research community involvement in the development and evaluation of
NASA CMS products, coordinating their NASA-funded CMS activities to ensure
maximum science, management, and policy return, and providing scientific, technical,
and policy-relevant inputs to help identify potential future research topics for NASA CMS
activities. As currently funded investigations are completed, their Principal Investigators
(PIs) will rotate off the CMS ST and be replaced by the newly selected investigators
from this program element.
The work so far conducted in this CMS prototyping effort has leveraged the much larger
investments currently made by NASA in remote sensing observations of carbon-related
properties of the Earth, as well as in carbon cycle science research.
2. Research Solicited
This program element solicits investigations that will advance products toward the CMS
end goal: development of prototype carbon monitoring systems from an Earth’s system
perspective. Areas of interest include terrestrial, atmospheric, and aquatic realms.
Proposal emphasis must be directed toward continued development of the established
CMS pilot studies (see https://carbon.nasa.gov), synergistic advancements from past
CMS activities, as well as acquisition, quantification, and development of prototype
CMS system capabilities that can improve existing and develop new data products
toward achieving the levels of precision and accuracy required by current carbon trading
activities (e.g., certification of emissions reductions). Successful applicants will also
become NASA CMS Science Team (ST) members.
2.1 Research Topics
With this program element, NASA CMS will continue to refine, evaluate, and integrate
suborbital, airborne, and satellite data, providing products that overlay previous
research within a user-defined prototype monitoring system. These data sources
include, but are not limited to, field campaigns with extensive NASA support.

A.6-2
All proposals are required to target a CMS prototyping activity and not focus solely on
carbon cycle science research. This requirement will be factored into the relevance
criterion evaluation. Proposals that do not address a CMS prototyping activity and
clearly show the use of derived remote sensing data will be considered non-responsive
and thus may be returned without review.
This program element solicits proposals for the following types of carbon monitoring
prototyping and product development activities:
• Studies that address research needs to advance (a) remote sensing-based
approaches to quantifying forest degradation and forest regrowth; (b)
independent assessment of the accuracy of satellite or airborne remote sensing
observations of biomass and carbon stocks; and (c) the use of satellite remote
sensing as an alternative or a supplement to ground-based methods for
quantifying net carbon emissions and/or storage. Of particular interest are
investigations that advance products that contribute to the support by Committee
on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS)- affiliated space agencies and partners
to the Global Stocktake .
32T 32T

• Studies that build upon, extend, evaluate and/or improve the existing CMS
products for biomass and flux resulting from NASA’s earlier phases of CMS pilot
studies; such studies may include, for example, product improvements, refined
characterization and quantification of errors and uncertainties, and/or preparation
and delivery of a mature product for long-term archive at an established NASA
DAAC or equivalent data center.
• Studies using remote sensing data that evaluate and enhance national reported
carbon emissions inventories from bottom-up estimates from various sectors of
emissions within the United States for both CO 2 and CH 4 and have the potential
R R R R

to be applied to reported national inventories from other nations. Activities

responsive to recommendations from UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), especially its Subsidiary Body on Scientific and
32T

Technological Advice , as well as of the World Meteorological Organizations’

32T

Integrated Global Greenhouse Gas Information System , are of interest.

32T 32T

• Studies that build upon and improve quantification of terrestrial-ocean carbon

fluxes for accounting purposes, in particular in areas that have been subject to
considerable perturbations. Inclusion/delineation of anthropogenic carbon
contributions to existing flux estimates are encouraged. Of interest are
investigations that will use remote sensing data products to further the
accounting, refinement and uncertainty reduction of blue carbon ecosystem
stocks and fluxes, in support of the National Academies “ Negative Emissions 32T

Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda ” report, and 32T

Ocean-based climate solutions identified by the Ocean Policy Committee .

32T 32T

• Studies to develop and/or refine quantification of aquatic carbon sources, sinks,

and fluxes using data products or approaches that integrate, or provide the basis
for integrating, remote sensing data from current or future NASA missions. Of
particular interest are products that support the Consensus Study Report from
the National Academies A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide
32T

Removal and Sequestration , especially those that address bridging knowledge

32T

A.6-3
 gaps that will lead to a better understanding of the risks and benefits of ocean-
based Carbon Dioxide Removal approaches.
Proposals should identify stakeholder interests and document engagement of the user
community in understanding, using, and/or evaluating current and planned NASA CMS
products with regard to their value for decision-making by these users, and to assist in
having existing products used for stake-holder activities. Cost sharing is not required,
nor part of the evaluation or grade of the proposals but may be offered voluntarily. All
else being equal, priority will be given to proposals where potential stakeholders have
in-kind contributions to ensure transfer of CMS activities into their own ongoing or future
activity. Examples of potential stakeholders can be found here .
32T 32T

Data from airborne or spaceborne remote sensing is required as a primary research tool
in all proposed CMS investigations. All sources of remotely sensed data must be well
justified in terms of their importance and appropriateness for the work to be conducted,
as well as their overall utility for monitoring carbon for science, management, and policy.
The NASA CMS program continues to emphasize the importance of characterizing and
quantifying uncertainties and errors in all CMS products and analyses, and such work
must be included in all investigations proposed (see Section 2.2.6).
Proposals must explain the societal relevance of the carbon monitoring activities
proposed and provide justification regarding the importance of this work to U.S. national
interests in current or potential carbon monitoring for science, management, and policy.
Proposals must clearly explain how the proposed work will address stakeholder
interests in their studies. Proposers are encouraged to work with stakeholders to better
understand stakeholder interests and requirements. Stakeholders are defined as those
that utilize products outside the normal scientific research realm. In addition, proposers
must indicate how they will contribute to CMS ST activities to understand and engage
the user community for carbon monitoring products. Many of the studies funded
32T

through the ROSES-2020 CMS program element have one additional year of funding
32T

remaining. Proposals to further develop or expand upon funded ROSES-2020 activities

are, therefore, not currently as high a priority as the research topics listed in this
program element.
2.2 Additional Proposal Requirements
2.2.1 Requirements Regarding the Duration of Award
The proposed scientific tasks must be of no more than three years duration and
proposers may not propose a study with a longer period of performance. If the proposed
research can be conducted in less than three years, a shorter period of performance is
encouraged.
2.2.2 Carbon Monitoring System Science Team Membership
All proposals must request CMS ST membership for one or more key investigators and
include one to two paragraphs describing the contributions they anticipate making to the
activities of the CMS ST. This section should address one or more of the following:
• Representing concerns of the broad carbon monitoring community with respect to
the nature, quality, and utility of existing or new NASA CMS products;

A.6-4
 • Coordinating their CMS activities to ensure maximum returns and enhance or
create complementarity, integration, and synergy;
• Providing important perspectives on product development, implementation, and
evaluation;
• Providing insights on the relative merits of alternative approaches and products;
• Making connections to ongoing and newly developing activities with similar and/or
complementary objectives being undertaken by other entities, especially other
U.S. agencies; and/or
• Providing scientific, technical, and policy-relevant inputs to help set priorities and
directions for future NASA CMS activities, including with existing working groups
within CMS.
The CMS ST will conduct its business through periodic meetings, with frequent
interactions through monthly teleconference calls and frequent email communications.
2.2.3 Requirements for the Cost Plan
Given the varying types of investigations solicited, NASA expects to fund a range of
investigation sizes. It is expected that proposals requiring acquisition of new airborne or
commercial satellite data will have budget profiles that have a significant peak during
the year of data purchase/acquisition, but for the other years of such studies and for all
other investigation types, NASA would not expect the per year budget, even for the
most ambitious of investigations, to exceed $400,000. However, lower cost proposals of
high scientific merit are very much encouraged. All data purchases, including
commercial, must be itemized and justified within the scope of CMS. Cost plans must
include resources for activities undertaken as a CMS ST member, including funds for
travel to ST meetings. The proposed budget should include funds to participate in two
CMS-related meetings per year, each lasting three days. For planning purposes,
proposers should budget each year for one meeting in the western U.S. and one
meeting in the Washington, DC area.
2.2.4 Requirements for Proposals Requesting Acquisition of New Airborne Data
Proposals requiring acquisition of data from airborne sensors must detail in their budget
all costs associated with data set acquisition, including costs for aircraft hours,
deployment costs, mission peculiar costs, data processing, and other costs associated
with deploying the sensors, aircraft, and personnel. (This provision applies to all sensors
and platforms, including any NASA sensors and platforms, as well as non-NASA
sensors and platforms). If the instrument or aircraft platform is not a NASA asset,
proposers must take responsibility for making all arrangements to secure the availability
of the needed sensors and aircraft and explain these plans in the proposal.
All proposers must submit a Flight Request to the NASA Airborne Science Flight
Request system at http://airbornescience.nasa.gov (and then click on "Flight Request").
This is required for all proposals, whether it involves NASA sensors, platforms, and
personnel or not, because a flight request is used to help NASA understand and track
all of the airborne science it supports. Address any flight request system or process
questions directly to Marilyn Vasques, Flight Request Manager at
Marilyn.Vasques@nasa.gov or 650-604-6120).
32T 32T

A.6-5
 2.2.5 Requirements for International Agreements, Permissions, and Flight
Clearances
CMS activities proposing airborne and in-situ data acquisitions outside the U.S. and/or
in cooperation with interagency and international activities and programs (e.g.,
SilvaCarbon, REDD, REDD+-related projects) may require international agreements,
permissions (e.g., research/data collection permits), overflight clearances, or other
formal arrangements. Proposals must detail plans for meeting such requirements.
Proposals requesting use of NASA aircraft, NASA sensors, and/or NASA personnel in
international work are required to follow all relevant NASA policies and procedures. In
some cases, it may either be required or preferable for NASA to lead securing all or
certain types of required agreements, permissions, or clearances. In most cases, where
the use of NASA aircraft or sensors is not requested and NASA personnel are not
involved, proposers will be fully responsible for securing their own arrangements.
Research involving participants at foreign organizations must be proposed and
performed on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, whether through a proposal from a foreign
or a U.S. Organization. Procurement of goods and services may be allowable, see
FAQ .
32T 32T

2.2.6 Requirements to Address Errors, Uncertainties, and Instrument Calibration

Given the importance of carbon cycle data and information for decision-making, it is
essential that the research supported under NASA’s CMS program characterize
uncertainties and quantify errors associated with data and derived information products,
as well as with analytical approaches, model results, and/or scientific interpretations.
When new data are acquired as part of the proposed activities, it is equally important
that instrument calibration be documented and traceable so different types of data and
data products can be intercompared with a high degree of confidence. Therefore, all
proposals submitted in response to this program element must describe how errors and
uncertainties will be addressed within their research project, including, if relevant to their
study, errors and uncertainties associated with instrument calibration. The
characterization of errors and uncertainties must be described in a separate subsection
of the Scientific/Technical/Management section of the proposal. If new observations are
to be made in the study, then this subsection should also describe their calibration,
accuracy, and traceability.
2.2.7 Work Effort and Current and Pending Support
Proposers must use the Earth Science Division's standard template for detailing the
level of work effort and current and pending support of project participants. The
template is available at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-science-division-appendix-a-
32T

roses-proposals 32T

2.2.8 Data Policy and Data Management Plan Requirements

All data and information acquired and data products produced under the NASA CMS
program must be made publicly available, with no period of exclusive use, in
compliance with NASA’s Earth Science data policy (http://science.nasa.gov/earth-

A.6-6
science/earth-science-data/data-information-policy/). Any data proposed to be analyzed
from any source, including NASA and other satellite data, ancillary data, and data from
commercial sources, must use publicly-available data, in the sense that they are openly
accessible. Commercial data need not be free, but it must be purchasable by all
potential investigators. Proposals that utilize any data that is not, or not yet, publicly
available will not be considered. The data management plan shall be included in a
separate section, of up to 2 pages, immediately following the citations, as described in
Section 1.1 of A.1 the Earth Science Research Program Overview .
32T 32T

3. Programmatic Information
3.1 Funding Allocations
Of the $10M of Fiscal Year 2023 funding identified for CMS efforts, $6M is already
allocated to ongoing research commitments from prior years. Therefore, $4M in FY
2023 funding is available to support new research under this program element.
3.2 Evaluation Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria defined in the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers, and as specified in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, with additional
factors noted in this section.
In addition to the factors given in the Guidebook for Proposers, the determination of a
proposal's intrinsic merit shall also consider the following:
• The quality and appropriateness of the proposed approach to product prototyping,
product evaluation, and/or characterization of uncertainties and quantification of
errors, including those associated with instrument calibration, and
• The quality and completeness of the data management plan.
The determination of a proposal's relevance shall be based on the extent to which it
applies to the topics listed in Section 2.1. NASA will consider the relative priority of the
activities proposed for support of carbon monitoring-related decision-making.
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first $4M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending 15
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
32T 32T 32T 32T

(NOI) to propose
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
32T 32T 32T 32T

Planning date for start of

January, 2023
investigation
Page limit for the central 15 pages; see also Table 1 of the ROSES-
32T

Science/Technical/Management 2022 and the NASA Guidebook for

32T

section of proposal Proposers.

A.6-7
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program, all of whom share the
following postal address:
Earth Science Division Science
Mission Directorate NASA
Headquarters Washington, DC
20546-0001
This program is relevant to the Earth
Science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
32T
Solicitation 32T
See A.1 the Earth Science Research
32T
Program Overview , and Section IV and 32T
Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , the NASA
32T 32T 32T
Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) 32T
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-CMS
Michael J. Falkowski
Telephone: (202) 358-1431
Email: Michael.Falkowski@nasa.gov
32T 32T
Kenneth W. Jucks
Telephone: 202-358-0476
Email: Kenneth.W.Jucks@nasa.gov
Laura Lorenzoni
Telephone: 202-358-0917
Email: laura.lorenzoni@nasa.gov
32T 32T
Hank A. Margolis
Telephone: (202) 358-4760
Email: Hank.A.Margolis@nasa.gov
32T 32T
A.6-8
A.7 U BIODIVERSITY
NOTICE: The Biodiversity program element will not be competed in
ROSES this year. NASA anticipates that this program will be solicited
again in ROSES-2023.
1. U Scope of Program
Biodiversity is the variety of life on Earth at all levels of organization, from ecosystems
to species to genes. It incorporates the compositional, structural, and functional aspects
of life at these different levels. Biodiversity both enables and represents life’s responses
to the changing environments of our dynamic planet, while also serving as a driver of
environmental change. Biodiversity encapsulates life’s evolutionary history. In doing so,
it provides humanity, indeed all life, with a tremendous resource of opportunities to
survive and thrive in an uncertain future.
Recent efforts to track the status of biodiversity globally have consistently reported
significant declines throughout its levels of organization. A growing scientific consensus
posits that we are losing biodiversity at rates comparable to those seen in the major
extinction events documented in the geologic record. Humanity’s role in this decline and
our concerns over the subsequent loss of the many benefits, goods, and services we
derive from biodiversity demand efforts to understand the condition of biodiversity and
its changes in space and time. In addition, there is a need to understand biodiversity
because it drives changes in the wider Earth system. Thus, NASA seeks tools to
understand the condition of biodiversity and how it is changing over time.
Biodiversity is often studied and addressed locally, especially with regard to the spatial
scales at which we seek to understand the causes and consequences of change. To
address biodiversity loss as a global issue requires integrating research efforts across
multiple spatial and temporal scales and observing biodiversity at all of its levels of
organization. Accomplishing this integration of dynamic biodiversity patterns and
processes across multiple scales is easier said than done and continues to be one of
the major challenges for all of the biological sciences.
The NASA Earth Science Division approaches biodiversity science from the standpoint
of two of its key aspects: pattern and process. Using observations from satellites,
airborne and seaborne platforms, and in situ efforts, NASA explores patterns of
biodiversity extant upon the land and within the water. Our tools are ideally suited for
detecting many of biodiversity’s patterns, especially at the ecosystem level, but also at
finer levels such as species. Biodiversity pattern often follows process. Thus, we also
seek to understand the geophysical and ecological processes that result in the patterns
of biodiversity our observations detect. Understanding these processes requires
observations, with some of these observations at finer spatial scales than available from
NASA satellites. It also requires models, essentially simplified representations of our
knowledge of how certain systems work that in turn allow us to test the validity of this
knowledge. Process-oriented research offers the additional benefit of connecting the
Biodiversity program to the activities of other NASA Earth Science programs.

A.7-1
2. U Point of Contact
Questions or comments may be directed to the Biodiversity Program Manager using the
information below:
Woody Turner
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1662
Email: woody.turner@nasa.gov
34TU U34T

A.7-2
A.8 U PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
1. U Background
NASA's Physical Oceanography program supports research in ocean physics and
climate science based on NASA's observational and modeling assets, and enables
development of NASA's current and future ocean physics satellite missions and process
studies. The primary science thrust for the program is to understand the ocean's role in
the Earth system and its changing climate. Earth is largely a water planet, and oceans
maintain its habitable climate by absorbing, storing, and transporting large quantities of
energy, heat, freshwater, moisture, and carbon dioxide. Observing, interpreting, and
predicting the evolution of the ocean state within the integrated ocean-land-atmosphere-
solid Earth system are fundamental to Earth system science and climate studies.
NASA's Physical Oceanography program directs seven competitively-selected Science
29TU U29T

Teams and provides scientific leadership on nine NASA missions related to ocean
physics. The program also contributes to multiple inter-agency and international Earth-
observing and climate initiatives, including the White House Climate Task Force , the
29T 29T

White House Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST), United

29T 29 T 29T

Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development , U.S. Global Change
29T 29T

Research Program (USGCRP), and the World Climate Research Program’s (WCRP)
29T

Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) Program. Unlike the dedicated science
29T 29T

team elements in ROSES that are focused on a single observable (e.g., ocean
temperature, salinity, sea level, ocean vector winds), this program element seeks
proposals that cut across multiple variables focusing on ocean's integrated role in the
climate system and its interaction with various components of the Earth's system.
2. Scope of Program
To advance NASA's understanding of the ocean’s physical role in the Earth system, the
following research themes are identified as priority areas for the proposals solicited
through this announcement:
2.1 Ocean physics of a warming Earth
A broad range of studies examining novel ocean features and their underlying physics
that occur in response to a warming climate are sought. Studies quantifying the role of
ocean dynamics and thermodynamics in the Earth's fundamental cycles, such as
energy, heat, freshwater, are of particular interest. Priority will be given to inspiring
proposals that investigate new linkages and interactions between intrinsic ocean
physical processes and Earth system response and characterize how ocean physical
fluxes and processes drive and/or respond to various climate phenomena.
Examples of such proposals include studies on the role of ocean dynamics as a
regulator of the Earth's heat or freshwater budgets, ocean as an indicator of the
planetary energy imbalance, role of ocean dynamics and thermodynamics in driving
local and regional sea level change, ocean mixing as a climate-feedback mechanism,
etc. – bring your favorite climate change process and quantify the ocean's integrated
role in it. Keep the Earth-system, global approach in mind. If your focus is on coastal
seas (where most of the human interaction with the ocean occurs), demonstrate a broad
impact of the proposed coastal studies in a global context of the Earth system.

A.8-1
2.2 Novel remote sensing techniques for ocean physics
NASA has successfully developed remote sensing techniques for a number of basic
ocean physical variables, including sea surface height, sea surface temperature, sea
surface salinity, and ocean surface winds. This sub-element seeks modest proposals
that explore new concepts for remote sensing of interest to the ocean physics
community. Novel concepts that allow sensing of multiple basic observables,
simultaneously, and resolve a physical process (e.g., aspects of air-sea coupling, ocean
mixing from space) will be given a higher priority. This opportunity is not for technology
or instrument development, but for concept articulation and exploration.
2.3 Interpreting future climate projections with NASA data
NASA seeks proposals that use NASA data and reanalysis products to analyze and
interpret projected future climates by the most recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
29T 29T

(AR6) that are directly relevant for ocean physics community. Specifically, proposals
that show the utility of NASA observations in interpreting and understanding the IPCC
AR6 projected changes in ocean temperature and salinity, ocean circulation and
transport, ocean mixing, sea level, and marine extreme events are solicited. If the
release schedule allows, similar interpretation of the upcoming USGCRP 5 th National
P P

Climate Assessment (NCA5) findings (currently scheduled for 2023) related to the
ocean physics community are encouraged as well.
This opportunity of sub-element 2.3 is not for data assimilation, model development, or
operational modeling applications, which are ably covered by NASA’s Modeling,
Analysis and Prediction Program as well as by other agencies. Rather, this sub-element
seeks proposals that will provide analysis and interpretation of the IPCC AR6 or NCA5
projected ocean states using NASA knowledge and data. The ultimate goal of this sub-
element is to identify most critical or sensitive aspects of the projected changes of the
ocean and Earth system, which could serve as guidance for future observing needs.
3. Data, Tools, and Open Science Requirements
Extensive use of NASA satellite observations is required, particularly those directly
relevant to NASA Physical Oceanography program as listed on the program’s site . The
29T 29T

use of ocean-ice product Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean ( ECCO)29T 29T

that integrates most of the ocean datasets will be considered as sufficient to meet the
data use requirement. Use of observations from NASA’s interagency and/or
international partners when used together with NASA data, is acceptable. When
appropriate, use of data collected by NASA airborne remote sensing and ship-based
field campaigns, including OMG, S-MODE, SASSIE, SPURS-1, SPURS-2, is
encouraged. Synergistic use of other in situ observations, data-derived products and
modeling systems is welcome. All pertinent NASA datasets from satellite, airborne, field
campaigns, and modeling experiments are publicly available at the Physical
Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center, PO.DAAC .
29T 29T

Data, model results, and other information created under this announcement are subject
to NASA's Earth Science Data policy and will be evaluated as one of the scorable
29T 29T

metrics during the proposal evaluation process. Proposals must provide a Data
Management Plan and Software Development Plan, identifying an open-source

A.8-2
software license and stating an open-source software release milestones. Proposals
that would not develop software or deliver any data sets should simply indicate that in
the corresponding sections. indicate that in the text box in response to the Software
Development Plan and Data Management Plan questions.
Selected investigators are encouraged to publish their work as Open Access, to
enhance open knowledge sharing and result dissemination.
4. Programmatic Information
Total funds available for work selected under this solicitation are approximately $1.5M
per year for three years. Pending Covid-19 restrictions, proposers are encouraged to
include travel funding for one domestic trip per year to support participation in a relevant
NASA Physical Oceanography Program workshop or scientific meeting (e.g., AGU or
Ocean Sciences Meetings, a U.S. CLIVAR workshop, a workshop on technology
development relevant for ocean physics community, etc.).
Based on the quality of proposals received, awards will be distributed across the three
research themes identified in Section 2.1-2.3; although given the overall limited number
of proposals to be funded, no commitment is being made to funding proposals in all
three areas.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~ $1.5M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~ 6-10
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
29T 29T 29T 29T

propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
29T 29T 29T 29T

Planning date for start of

investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance to NASA
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
January 1, 2023
15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and the Guidebook for Proposers.
This program is relevant to the Earth science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , the NASA
29T 29T 29T

preparation and submission of Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) of

29T

proposals the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.

A.8-3
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
Web site for submission of http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
29T 29T

proposal via NSPIRES at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-

29T 29T

9376)
Web site for submission of http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
29T 29T

proposal via Grants.gov support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)

29T 29T

Funding opportunity number for

downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
NNH22ZDA001N-PO
Nadya Vinogradova Shiffer
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0976
Email: nadya@nasa.gov
29T 29T

A.8-4
A.9 U OCEAN SALINITY SCIENCE TEAM
NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in
ROSES this year. The next expected solicitation of this element would
be in ROSES-2025
1. U Scope of Program
Salinity plays an important role in Earth climate processes, including ocean circulation
and transport, global water cycle, ocean biogeochemistry, and land-ocean linkages; and
it is recognized as an essential climate variable within the Global Climate Observing
System (GCOS). The goals of the NASA's Ocean Salinity Science Team (OSST) are to
produce the best-possible satellite-derived ocean salinity datasets and to demonstrate
the utility of salinity information in various Earth science applications.
2. U Point of Contact
Nadya Vinogradova Shiffer
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0976
Email: nadya@nasa.gov
18TU U18T

A.9-1
A.10 SEA LEVEL CHANGE SCIENCE TEAM
U

NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in

ROSES this year. The next expected solicitation of this element would
be in ROSES-2023.
1. U Scope of Program
This program element is intended to integrate research results, data sets, and model
outputs to improve the accuracy of sea level estimates and its components, to integrate
results into better forecasts of sea level rise, and to communicate the results of NASA's
sea level research in a simplified manner to the science community and the public. It
serves to continue the work of the NASA Sea Level Change Team initiated in 2014 and
continued in 2017 and 2020. It also serves as a mechanism for the U.S. to make a
substantial contribution to the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) Grand
Challenge on Regional Sea Level Change and Coastal Impacts and various
assessment frameworks, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) National Climate Assessment (NCA) studies.
2. U Point of Contact
Nadya Vinogradova Shiffer
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0976
Email: nadya@nasa.gov
33TU U33T

A.10-1
A.11 SURFACE W ATER AND OCEAN TOPOGRAPHY SCIENCE TEAM
U

NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in

ROSES this year. The next expected solicitation of this element would
be in ROSES-2023.
1. U Scope of Program
Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) is a satellite mission being jointly
developed by NASA and CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales), the French space
agency, with contributions from the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and the United
Kingdom Space Agency (UKSA). At the time of writing, SWOT is currently scheduled for
launch in 2022. The SWOT mission will be NASA's first global survey of Earth's surface
water to observe ocean surface topography, major lakes, rivers, and wetlands with
unprecedented resolution. Mission updates and current status can be found at
https://swot.jpl.nasa.gov/ .
33TU U

2. Point of Contact
Nadya Vinogradova Shiffer
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0976
Email: nadya@nasa.gov
33T 33T

A.11-1
A.12 U OCEAN SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY SCIENCE TEAM
NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in
ROSES this year. The next expected solicitation of this element would
be in ROSES-2024.
1. U Scope of Program
The Ocean Surface Topography Science Team (OSTST) brings together international
scientists to understand Earth’s oceans and their interaction within the climate system
using ocean altimetry satellite observations. The overarching goals of the OSTST are to
produce the best possible satellite-derived altimetry data and to utilize the
measurements of ocean surface topography for Earth science and applications.
2. U Point of Contact
Nadya Vinogradova Shiffer
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0976
Email: nadya@nasa.gov
34TU U34T

A.12-1
A.13 OCEAN VECTOR W INDS SCIENCE TEAM
U

NOTICE: Proposals to this program element must provide a Data

Management Plan and Software Development Plan, see Section 3.
1. U Background
Observing and interpreting winds over the ocean is one of the oldest of NASA's
traditions that began in late 1970s. Nearly four decades and several satellite missions
later, global and continuous data records of ocean vector winds are the backbone of
multiple discoveries in ocean and atmospheric physics and air-sea interaction, including
improved forecasting capabilities of tropical storms, hurricanes, and cyclones. The
continuity and accuracy of the ocean vector wind climate data records were key to
revealing multiple aspects of the coupled Earth climate system, such as changes in sea
ice, land and snow cover, urban extent, carbon biomass, and ocean productivity, among
other studies.
The wealth of aforementioned discoveries is largely due to the continued efforts of the
members of the Ocean Vector Wind Science Team (OVWST), an international
community of scientists, government agencies, and users. Over the decades, members
of the OVWST produced high-quality data streams from Earth-observing satellite
missions that carry scatterometers and polarimetric radiometers, performed analysis
and interpretation of the wind-driven geophysical processes, and improved relevant
operational modeling and forecasting applications. To learn about the OVWST activities,
please visit the PO DAAC website .
29TU U29T

Every four years, NASA renews the membership of the OVWST with a goal to grow and
strengthen the ocean vector wind community by welcoming new members who bring
new ideas, and re-welcoming returning members who mentor and train the next
generation of NASA satellite wind experts. This program element is another such
opportunity to continue the legacy of OVWST scientific excellence and to further expand
the range of applications of ocean vector wind data across Earth science.
2. Scope of Program
The following research themes are identified as priority areas for the proposals solicited
through this announcement:
2.1 Winds couple the moving ocean and the atmosphere
Air-sea coupling and interaction is a broad research topic describing the transfer of
various properties between the Earth's two fluids, atmospheric air and ocean's
seawater. This dynamic link between the two components of the Earth system shapes
our weather and climate, through storage and release of heat, moisture, nutrients,
gases and particles, including greenhouses gases and aerosols. The goal of this
research sub-element is to focus on the role of ocean surface winds in coupling
between the ocean and the atmosphere, the role of the wind in ocean circulation and
the exchange processes across the air-sea interface. Among the highest priority to this
solicitation and responsive to the 2017 Decadal Survey are studies that explore the link
29T 29T

between the surface winds and ocean surface currents as a coupled dynamic system,
and their dynamic influence on the air-sea fluxes and global climate processes.

A.13-1
Examples of relevant wind-driven and ocean current-driven climate processes can
include variability of large-scale circulation; horizontal and vertical transports and
storage of heat and freshwater; changes in the water cycle and patterns of evaporation
minus precipitations over the oceans; changes in the latent heat flux; coupled climate
modes of variability; marine boundary layer; mesoscale dynamics and ocean
ecosystems; polar wind-current-ice coupled processes, etc. Investigations making a
strong link between a particular wind-driven process and global climate system are
particularly encouraged.
2.2 Compound ocean extreme events in a warming climate
Observational evidence suggest that, in addition to low-frequency climate trends, there
are measurable changes to the extreme (weather) events, such as heatwaves,
droughts, heavy precipitations, and storms. According to recent IPCC Sixth Assessment
Report (AR6) , marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since 1985
in response to human influences on the climate system, and the increasing trend is
projected to continue in the future. This research sub-element seeks proposals that
investigate the physics of the ocean’s extreme events. Investigations of the compound
ocean’s extreme events are of particular interest. This includes compound effects of
concurrent marine heat waves as a precursor of droughts or fire weather; or concurrent
marine heat waves that intensify storms, high-wind events, and coastal flooding; etc.
The goal of this sub-element is to identify the underlying physics of the compound
ocean extremes in a warming climate in order to improve their prediction and the overall
impact.
2.3 New applications of ocean and land scatterometer data in Earth science
Microwave backscatter (scatterometer) data provides a distinctive view of the Earth's
surface, beyond traditional oceanic features including those covered in themes 2.1 and
2.2. This research sub-element seeks proposals that utilize backscatter data for non-
traditional, value-added applications. The goal is to demonstrate the utility of
scatterometer data to observe the global change of the Earth surface from an innovative
perspective. Examples can include Earth's changes due to urban development,
deforestation, and other environmental stresses that contribute to global climate
change.
2.4 Ocean wind climate data records for climate research
Maintaining production of climate data records for ocean vector winds is critical for
ocean and climate communities. The goal of this sub-element is to develop a consistent,
high-quality, near real-time product for ocean vector winds and/or other air-sea flux
variables that can reliably resolve variability from sub-daily signals to multi-decadal
climate trends over the globe, including coastal oceans. The production of such a record
is envisioned to be built upon decades of OVWST research and NASA investments in
product development and improvement, including homogenization of measurements
from different missions, sensors, and platforms.
Linking data products to potential climate applications and users would be useful in
understanding the motivation behind the proposed algorithms and delivery schedules.
Proposers in this category must provide detailed data management and software

A.13-2
development plans to comply with NASA open science requirements described in
Section 3 below.
3. Data, Tools, and Open Science Requirements
Proposers are encouraged to use a variety of scatterometer data from past and current
satellite missions, reanalyses and data assimilation products, in situ data when
appropriate, data from NASA sub-orbital missions particularly S-MODE, and data from
the upcoming (at the time of writing) Department of Defense STP-H8 mission carrying
NASA-developed instruments COWVR and TEMPEST.
Data, model results, and other information created under this announcement are subject
to NASA's Earth Science Data policy and will be evaluated as one of the scorable
29T 29T

metrics during the proposal evaluation process. Proposals must provide a Data
Management Plan and Software Development Plan, identifying an open source
software license and stating an open source software release milestones. Proposals
that would not develop software or deliver any data sets should simply indicate that in
the corresponding sections of the proposal.
All proposals must provide a Data Management Plan (DMP) of up to two pages in
length, immediately following the references and citations for the
Science/Technical/Management section of the proposal. See Section 1.1 of A.1 the
Earth Science Research Overview for more information on the DMP, which is now a
standard element of most proposals.
In addition to the standard DMP, proposals responding to the "Ocean wind climate data
records for climate research" research theme (Section 2.4) must also provide detailed
Software Development plan of up to two pages in length, immediately following the
DMP. The SDP must include a description of software to be produced during the funded
research and version control processes. The SDP must also identify an open source
software license to be used, state open source software release milestones, and any
legal issues involved in the software components, e.g., ITAR; a software release
schedule; software distribution and archiving, e.g., GitHub; budget description for
software development, documentation, distribution, publication, and maintenance, (e.g.,
a week of PI time at the end of the project to update the GitHub repository). Those who
would not develop software should simply indicate that in lieu of the SDP.
Proposers are encouraged to plan and budget to publish their work as Open Access, to
enhance open knowledge sharing and result dissemination.
4. Programmatic Information
Total funds available for work selected under this solicitation are approximately $2.5M
per year for four years. Pending COVID-19 restrictions, proposers are required to
include travel funding for OVWST annual meetings that were traditionally held on a
domestic/international alternating schedule. Science Team meetings will be organized
by the OVWST Team Leader. NASA will appoint a Team Leader outside of this
solicitation and thus is not soliciting Team Leader proposals here.
Based on the quality of proposals received, awards will be distributed across the four
research themes identified in Section 2; although given the overall limited number of

A.13-3
proposals to be funded, no commitment is being made to fund proposals in all four
areas.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Notice of Intent to
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
preparation and submission of
proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
~ $2.5M
~ 10-15
4 years
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
6 months after proposal due date
15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and the Guidebook for Proposers.
This program is relevant to the Earth science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , the NASA
29T 29T 29T
Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) of
29T
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
29T 29T
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
29T 29T
9376)
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
29T 29T
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
29T 29T
NNH22ZDA001N-OVWST
A.13-4
Point of contact concerning this
program
Nadya Vinogradova Shiffer
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0976
Email: nadya@nasa.gov
29T 29T
A.13-5
A.14 MODELING, ANALYSIS, AND PREDICTION
U

NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in

ROSES this year. The next expected solicitation of this element would
be in ROSES-2023.
1. U Overview
NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) supports a broad portfolio of research in the
Earth Science Research Program. Key questions that drive the core research efforts of
the Earth Science Division (ESD) within SMD include:
• How is the Earth system changing?
• What are the sources of change in the Earth system and their magnitudes and
trends?
• How will the Earth system change in the future?
• How can Earth system science improve mitigation of and adaptation to global
change?
NASA ESD has an end-to-end strategy for addressing these questions, one component
of which is a strong, sustained commitment to Earth system modeling in concert with
observations. Within ESD Earth Science Research, the Modeling, Analysis, and
Prediction (MAP) program seeks to develop an understanding of the Earth as a
complete, dynamic system, to represent that understanding in comprehensive,
physically-based models of the Earth system and observation/model syntheses, and to
utilize the models and syntheses to answer the key questions listed above.
The modeling and data assimilation supported by the MAP program is observation
driven. That is, the direction of the modeling and assimilation work is guided by
available and anticipated observations, and its goal is to extract from the observations
as much value as possible. For MAP-supported investigations, this involves rigorous
examination and utilization of observations in a global Earth system context. The
modeling integrates across all the research activities in NASA’s Earth science research
program, and both spans and connects the spatial and temporal scales that
characterize satellite observations and observations from ground- and air-based
campaigns. This approach facilitates the validation of the satellite observations and
observationally-based improvements of Earth system model components, leading to
models that accurately represent the Earth system with diagnostic and predictive skill.
MAP strives to generate models and model components that are well documented,
thoroughly evaluated, interoperable, robust, and consistent with current coding
standards and practices.
2. U Background
MAP funds two primary projects that comprise the core activities of the program. These
projects are:
• NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Global Modeling . The global
33TU U33T

modeling effort at GISS engages in research on global Earth system change

occurring on the decadal to centennial timescales, focusing in particular on
quantifying global change drivers and their past and potential future effects. GISS

A.14-1
 makes use of analyses of comprehensive global datasets and develops and
utilizes integrated global models of the Earth system. GISS has a long-term
involvement in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) that forms the
basis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments of
climate change. The primary GISS modeling tool supported by the MAP program
is the GISS Model E , a coupled atmosphere-ocean Earth system model (ESM).
33T 33T

• NASA Goddard Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO). GMAO33T 33T

addresses the optimal use of satellite and in situ observations to generate

research quality data sets for analyses and reanalyses, and also for weather,
climate, and air quality forecasts. The modeling and assimilation research
includes coupling to and assimilation of atmospheric aerosols and chemistry and
ocean biology and carbon. GMAO focuses on developing and maintaining world-
class data assimilation systems in order to maximize satellite data utility and
serve as a centralized resource for testing and validating as wide a range of
modeling and observational efforts as possible. The goal is to undertake
modeling and assimilation as components of an end-to-end process: Defining an
instrument and characterizing its in-flight performance; development of
algorithms and forward models for data assimilation; integrating the data into
assimilation products; and finally assessing the impact of the data on the
products of the assimilation system. GMAO is supported by MAP to develop and
utilize the Goddard Earth Observing System . GEOS includes both a coupled
33T 33T

atmosphere-ocean GCM and a data assimilation system (DAS).

MAP also funds several smaller but still substantial projects that further core program
interests. These efforts include:
• NASA GEOS chemistry/climate and transport modeling. Projects in chemistry-
33T

climate modeling with the GEOS chemistry-climate model (CCM)and in

33T

chemistry-transport modeling with the GEOS and GMI chemistry-transport

33T 33T

models (CTMs) investigate the roles and interactions of chemical and aerosol
species as components of the global Earth system. This includes investigations
of the consequences of changing emissions on atmospheric composition and
stratospheric and tropospheric ozone distributions.
• NASA Unified Weather Research Forecast Model (NU-WRF). The NU-WRF 33T 33T

model is a comprehensive regional Earth system model and data assimilation

system developed by combining the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)
model - a next-generation multiagency-supported mesoscale numerical weather
prediction (NWP) system - with NASA-developed modeling tools such as the
Land Information System (LIS), the Goddard Chemistry Aerosol Radiation and
Transport Model (GOCART), NASA-Goddard radiation and microphysics codes,
and the Goddard satellite data simulator unit (SDSU). NU-WRF can be applied to
fully coupled aerosol-cloud-precipitation-land simulations at kilometer length
scales. This allows robust connection of the global scale to the regional and
mesoscale, while maintaining the focus on comprehensive Earth system
modeling, as well as the use of NASA high-resolution satellite data for research
into short-term climate, weather, and integrated Earth system processes.

A.14-2
3. Point of Contact
David B. Considine
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-358-2277
Email: david.b.considine@nasa.gov
33T 33T

A.14-3
A.15 CRYOSPHERIC SCIENCE
U

NOTICE: The Cryospheric Science program will not be solicited in

ROSES-2022. This program may be competed again in ROSES-2023.
1. Scope of Program
U

Polar ice is a key component of the global climate system, interacting with the
biosphere, atmosphere, ocean, and solid earth. It is sensitive to changing atmospheric
and oceanic conditions and currently undergoing rapid change. Melting ice from the
Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contributes to sea level rise while changes in sea
ice impacts ocean biology, air-sea exchanges, and ocean circulation. Ice at the poles is
highly reflective and changes to its surface area impact radiation balance. Several
feedback mechanisms amplify the impact of the polar regions on the global climate.
Thus, monitoring the cryosphere, and understanding the underlying physical processes
that govern its behavior are critical to understanding recent and future global change.
Despite the importance of polar observations, the remote and harsh nature of these
regions means in situ measurements are often sparse. Therefore, satellite and airborne
based observations are the only means to provide large-scale and continuous
measurements of the polar regions.
The Cryospheric Sciences Program supports investigations of polar ice, including the
Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, polar glaciers, and sea ice in the Arctic and
Southern Oceans, that are based on satellite and airborne remote sensing. The
program seeks to improve our understanding of cryospheric processes, link the
cryosphere to the global climate system, and/or advance predictive capabilities.
2. Point of Contact
U

Thorsten Markus
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546
Telephone: (202) 358-3860
Email: thorsten.markus@nasa.gov
33TU U33T

A.15-1
A.16 ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION: UPPER ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION OBSERVATIONS
U

NOTICE: The Upper Atmosphere Research Program (UARP) will not

solicit proposals in ROSES-2022. All funds currently available for
UARP are committed to the support of awards selected through the
two ROSES-2020 solicitations. These next UARP related solicitations
will be competed again in ROSES-2024.
Atmospheric composition changes affect air quality, weather, climate, and critical
constituents, such as ozone. Atmosphere-biosphere exchange links terrestrial and
oceanic pools within the carbon cycle and other biogeochemical cycles. Solar radiation
affects atmospheric chemistry and is thus a critical factor in atmospheric composition.
Atmospheric composition is central to Earth system dynamics, since the atmosphere
integrates surface emissions globally on time scales from weeks to years and couples
several environmental issues. NASA’s research for furthering our understanding of
atmospheric composition is geared to providing an improved prognostic capability for
such issues (e.g., the recovery of stratospheric ozone and its impacts on surface
ultraviolet radiation, the evolution of greenhouse gases and their impacts on climate,
and the evolution of tropospheric ozone and aerosols and their impacts on climate and
air quality). Toward this end, research within the Atmospheric Composition Focus Area
addresses the following science questions:
• How is atmospheric composition changing?
• What trends in atmospheric constituents and solar radiation are driving global
climate?
• How do atmospheric trace constituents respond to and affect global
environmental change?
• What are the effects of global atmospheric chemical and climate changes on
regional air quality?
• How will future changes in atmospheric composition affect ozone, climate, and
global air quality?
NASA expects to provide the necessary monitoring and evaluation tools to assess the
effects of climate change on ozone recovery and future atmospheric composition,
improved climate forecasts based on our understanding of the forcings of global
environmental change, and air quality forecasts that take into account the feedbacks
between regional air quality and global climate change. Achievements in these areas
via advances in observations, data assimilation, and modeling enable improved
predictive capabilities for describing how future changes in atmospheric composition
affect ozone, climate, and air quality. Drawing on global observations from space,
augmented by suborbital and ground-based measurements, NASA is uniquely poised to
address these issues. This integrated observational strategy is furthered via studies of
atmospheric processes using unique suborbital platform-sensor combinations to
investigate, for example: (1) the processes responsible for the emission, uptake,
transport, and chemical transformation of ozone and precursor molecules associated
with its production in the troposphere and its destruction in the stratosphere and (2) the
formation, properties, and transport of aerosols in the Earth’s troposphere and
stratosphere. NASA’s research strategy for atmospheric composition encompasses an

A.16-1
end-to-end approach for instrument design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and
prognostic studies.
In ROSES-2020, UARP calls competed 4-year field observations via, A.18 Atmospheric
29TU

Composition: Upper Atmospheric Composition Observations and 3-year laboratory

U 29T

research projects via A.19 Atmospheric Composition: Laboratory Research . The next
29T 29T

solicitation of the field observation call will be ROSES-2024.

For further information on this program, contact:
Kenneth W. Jucks
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546
Telephone: (202) 358-0476
Email: kenneth.w.jucks@nasa.gov
29T 29T

A.16-2
A.17 ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION: RADIATION SCIENCES PROGRAM
U

NOTICE: The Radiation Sciences program will not solicit proposals in

ROSES-2022. Funds currently available in Fiscal Year 2022 for the
Radiation Sciences Program are committed to the support of awards
selected from previous solicitations. The Radiation Sciences Program
expects to solicit proposals in ROSES-2024 or ROSES-2025.
Interested researchers are encouraged to consult other program
elements for potential funding opportunities.
1. U Scope of Program
The Radiation Sciences Program (RSP) strives to develop a quantitative and predictive
understanding of how aerosols, clouds, and radiatively active gases scatter and absorb
radiation (including both solar and terrestrially originated radiation) in the Earth’s
atmosphere, especially as it relates to climate variability and change. The program
supports studies to improve the theoretical understanding of radiative transfer, as well
as field measurements of aerosol and cloud particle concentration, composition,
microphysics, and optical properties. These measurements include both airborne and
surface-based remote and in situ measurements. The program also supports the
analysis of satellite remote sensing and field data, as well as the development of
process models, which contribute to an Earth system modeling capability.
2. U Point of contact
Hal Maring
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546
Telephone: (202) 358-1679
Email: hal.maring@nasa.gov
29TU U29T

A.17-1
A.18 AURA SCIENCE TEAM AND ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION MODELING AND ANALYSIS
PROGRAM
NOTICE: Corrected April 29, 2022. It is estimated that the number of
new awards will be 24-36. New text is in bold and deleted text is struck
through.
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-
anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared according
to the guidelines in Section 3 and in the associated "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element.
1. Scope of Program
Changes in atmospheric composition affect air quality, weather, climate, and critical
constituents such as ozone while atmosphere-biosphere exchanges link terrestrial and
oceanic pools within the carbon cycle and other biogeochemical cycles. Solar radiation
affects atmospheric chemistry and is thus a critical factor in atmospheric composition.
Atmospheric composition is central to Earth system dynamics since the atmosphere
integrates surface emissions globally on time scales from weeks to years and couples a
number of critical environmental issues. NASA’s research for furthering our
understanding of atmospheric composition is geared to providing an improved
prognostic capability for such issues, including the recovery of stratospheric ozone and
its impacts on surface ultraviolet radiation, the evolution of greenhouse gases and their
impacts on climate, and the evolution of tropospheric ozone and aerosols and their
impacts on climate and air quality.
Toward this end, research within the Atmospheric Composition Focus Area addresses
the following science questions:
• How is atmospheric composition changing?
• What trends in atmospheric composition and solar radiation are driving global
climate?
• How does atmospheric composition respond to and affect global environmental
change?
• What are the effects of global atmospheric composition and climate changes on
regional air quality?
• How will future changes in atmospheric composition affect ozone, climate, and
global air quality?
NASA expects to provide the necessary monitoring and evaluation tools to assess the
effects of climate change on ozone recovery and future atmospheric composition,
improved climate forecasts based on our understanding of the forcings of global
environmental change and air quality forecasts that take into account the feedbacks
between regional air quality and global climate change. Achievements in these areas
via advances in observations, data assimilation, and modeling enable improved
predictive capabilities for describing how future changes in atmospheric composition
affect ozone, climate, and air quality. Drawing on global observations from space,
augmented by suborbital and ground-based measurements, NASA is uniquely poised to

A.18-1
address these issues. This integrated observational strategy is furthered via studies of
atmospheric processes using unique suborbital platform-sensor combinations to
investigate, for example: (1) the processes responsible for the emission, uptake,
transport, and chemical transformation of ozone and precursor molecules associated
with its production in the troposphere and its destruction in the stratosphere and (2) the
formation, properties, and transport of aerosols in the Earth’s troposphere and
stratosphere, as well as aerosol interaction with clouds. NASA’s research strategy for
atmospheric composition encompasses an end-to-end approach for instrument design,
data collection, analysis, interpretation, and prognostic studies.
2. Aura Science Team and ACMAP Activities
This is a joint solicitation seeking proposals for the analysis of satellite remote-sensing
data of the Earth’s atmosphere, particularly those using data generated by the Earth
Observing System (EOS) Aura satellite and for proposals relevant to the Atmospheric
Composition Modeling and Analysis Program (ACMAP).
Observations from Aura include those from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS), Ozone
Monitoring Instrument (OMI), Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) that ceased
operations in 2018, and High Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder (HIRDLS) that
ceased operation in 2008. NASA is also encouraging proposals that combine data from
Aura with data from other sensors within the “A-Train” or AM constellations (particularly
Aqua, Terra, CALIPSO, and CloudSAT, S-NPP) or satellites from other space agencies
(particularly SciSat/ACE, Sentinel 5-Precursor, MetOp), ground based networks (e.g.,
but not limited to ozonesondes, NDACC, AGAGE, AERONET, MPLNET, and TOLNet ),
and NASA suborbital campaigns (e.g., but not limited to DISCOVER-AQ, ATTREX,
SEAC4RS, AToM, ACT-America, ORACLES, KORUS-AQ, ACTIVATE, ACCLIP,
DCOTSS). These proposals should enable NASA research in the area of stratospheric
and tropospheric chemistry, as well as improve the measurements of aerosols and trace
gases, and determine the impacts of trace gasses and aerosols on climate and air
quality. Proposals should specifically address the use of the satellite data.
ACMAP addresses the following research issues, all of which are relevant to the data
sets from Aura:
• Tropospheric air quality and oxidation efficiency,
• Pollution sourced aerosols where they impact cloud properties,
• Stratospheric chemistry, including ozone depletion, and
• Chemistry/climate interactions.
Studies of long-term trends in atmospheric composition (potentially using both current
and past mission data sets) are also of interest to the ACMAP program, where the
connection between cause and effect is elucidated using models. The program is
interested in studies that integrate observations from multiple instruments with models
to address attribution and predictions.
Proposals directed to ACMAP priorities are encouraged to make use of Aura
observations, but their use is not mandatory.
Modeling tools can range from primarily conceptual to process-level to regional to fully
global, three-dimensional atmospheric composition models. ACMAP is focused primarily

A.18-2
on data analysis, model utilization, and model evaluation, rather than model
development. Proposals with a primary focus on model development and only a
secondary focus on utilization and data analysis are not encouraged.
Aura solicitation goals include:
• Using Aura data to better understand processes and track changes in
stratospheric and tropospheric composition, determine the exchange of trace
gases within the troposphere, between the stratosphere and troposphere, and
estimate the transport properties of the stratosphere and upper troposphere;
• Using Aura data along with other satellite trace gas data sets to quantify and map
emissions and quantify the impact of long-range transport and export of trace
gases important to air quality;
• Using the above-described data sets to study tropospheric air quality and the
oxidizing capacity of the troposphere, including the effects of climate change on
tropospheric air quality and air quality on climate, and studies of the attribution of
changes in air quality and oxidizing capacity over the past 20 years;
• Using the above-described data sets to study aerosol characteristics with respect
to their impacts on tropospheric chemical processes, including studies that deal
with the effects of clouds on atmospheric chemical processes, either by changing
the radiative properties of the atmosphere or by providing a place for aqueous
chemical reactions to occur;
• Using Aura data to better merge the activities of the atmospheric composition
research community and air quality monitoring activities of other agencies within
the United States.
3. Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members
on the review panel, but the reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal
teams during the scientific evaluation of the proposal. The overarching objective of dual-
anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit of a
proposal. See also https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for
this program element that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-
anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) the
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and 2) proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document, that contains any personally (and organizational) identifying
information.

A.18-3
To meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be instructed
to evaluate the anonymized proposals, without taking into account the proposing team
qualifications. As a final check, and only after the evaluation is finalized for all
proposals, the panel will be provided with the "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" documents. The panel will assess the qualifications of the team in order to
allow the reviewers to assess the team capabilities required to execute a given
proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must

A.18-4
 provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.
4. Summary Table of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~ $6.3M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~ 24-36 12-18 [Corrected April 29, 2022]
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to
Not requested.
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of 6 months after proposal due date.
investigation
Page limit for the central 15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES Summary of
Science-Technical-Management Solicitation and the Guidebook for Proposers.
section of proposal
Relevance to NASA This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA
General information and See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
of proposals Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, the NASA Guidebook
preparation and submission of for Proposers and Section IV(b) of the ROSES
proposals Summary of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
Web site for submission of http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (Help Desk available
proposal via NSPIRES at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or 202-479-9376)

A.18-5
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program, both of whom share
this mailing address:
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
http://grants.gov (Help Desk available at
support@grants.gov or 800-518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ACMAP
Kenneth W. Jucks
Telephone: (202) 358-0476
Email: kenneth.w.jucks@nasa.gov
Richard S. Eckman
Telephone: (202) 358-2567
Email: richard.s.eckman@nasa.gov
A.18-6
A.19 AIRBORNE AND SATELLITE INVESTIGATION OF ASIAN AIR QUALITY
NOTICE: An NSPIRES bug prevented submission of NOIs and Step-1
proposals to certain programs including this one from 8/13/-8/18.
Accordingly, the NOI due date for this program has been delayed by
six days to September 7, 2022.
1. Scope of Program
The Tropospheric Composition Program (TCP) studies the composition of the lower
atmosphere with a particular emphasis on the impact of tropospheric ozone and
aerosols on air quality and climate from local to global scales. This includes the need to
understand the precursor emissions, chemical transformations, and meteorological
factors that influence their formation and atmospheric distributions. Working in concert
with international partners, TCP strives to develop an integrated observing system for
tropospheric composition, which includes chemical transport models, as well as
satellite, airborne, and ground-based observations of tropospheric composition. This
integrated observing system is fundamental to create a better understanding of air
quality and climate.
The composition of the atmosphere is one of the most rapidly changing components of
the Earth system. As such, it often provides the first clues to changes in human activity
and ecosystem responses that can have both immediate and long-term impacts. Many
of these impacts can be categorized into short-term issues related to Air Quality and
long-term effects of Climate Change. Air Quality is largely driven by local factors, but it
is not immune to large-scale impacts related to transboundary pollution transport
between neighboring countries and the collective impact of human activity on changes
in hemispheric and global background concentrations of key pollutants. Climate Change
relates to global-scale trends in long-lived greenhouse gases, but the driving emissions
are highly variable in time and space, requiring attention at local-to-regional scales.
Both involve outcomes that depend on the intersection of anthropogenic and natural
emissions.
Along with the availability of the first satellite observations for atmospheric chemical
constituents came efforts to diagnose emissions. Over the last two decades,
increasingly sophisticated top-down emission assessment methods based on satellite
observations have been developed to compare with traditional bottom-up emissions
assessments. Such bottom-up emissions are more detailed, but they rely on
assumptions in order to scale up each emissions sector using statistics on activity levels
and average emission factors for specific processes. Observation-based, top-down
efforts have typically focused on individual species (e.g., CO, NO2, SO2, NH3, CH4, CO2)
and have provided insight on long-term emission trends. With the introduction of
geostationary satellite observations, additional insight into diurnal variability in
emissions is expected. Deducing these finer-scale emission patterns and the resulting
atmospheric pollutant distributions will lead to a better understanding of local and
regional air quality issues, improved modeling of the relationship between primary
emissions and secondary pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter), and more
informed decision making to support pollution mitigation strategies.

A.19-1
In the midst of sustained, long-term satellite observations and ground monitoring,
contributions from periodic, short-term intensive observations from aircraft enable the
most complete, multi-perspective characterization of atmospheric composition possible.
These integrated observations enable rigorous evaluation of models, validation and
improved interpretation of satellite observations, and process-level investigation of the
factors influencing atmospheric composition and air quality. Such airborne studies are a
staple of the TCP research portfolio and are conducted every few years to inform and
advance our understanding of global change.
2. Description of Solicited Research
The NASA Tropospheric Composition Program (TCP) is soliciting proposals for
participation in the Airborne and Satellite Investigation of Asian Air Quality (ASIA-AQ)
airborne campaign to be conducted in at least three Asian locations during January -
March of 2024. This solicitation is looking for scientists to provide measurements and
modeling to support the instrumented NASA research aircraft required to accomplish
the ASIA-AQ research goals. In this airborne campaign, the NASA DC-8 will provide
observations from near surface to ~12.5 km, and the NASA GV will provide mapping
remote sensing observations from ~8.5 km. Salient details of the ASIA-AQ campaign
are summarized below. For a more detailed description of the effort, proposers are
referred to the ASIA-AQ white paper available at https://espo.nasa.gov/asia-
aq/content/ASIA-AQ_White_Paper.
2.1 Airborne and Satellite Investigation of Asian Air Quality (ASIA-AQ)
The Airborne and Satellite Investigation of Asian Air Quality (ASIA-AQ) is an
international cooperative field study designed to address local air quality challenges.
Specifically, ASIA-AQ will contribute to improving the integration of satellite
observations with existing air quality ground monitoring and modeling efforts across
Asia. Satellite air quality observations are evolving with new capabilities from South
Korea’s Geostationary Environment Monitoring Spectrometer (GEMS). Traditional
satellite measurements from low earth orbit (LEO) are only available once per day.
GEMS measures hourly to provide a new view of air quality conditions from space that
both complements and depends upon ground-based monitoring efforts of countries in its
field of view. NASA is proposing to contribute two research aircraft to the study with the
potential to conduct flights in early 2024 over at least three Asian megacities.
ASIA-AQ flights will be conducted in full partnership with local scientists and
environmental agencies responsible for air quality monitoring and assessment. These
partners will contribute to the design of the flight sampling strategies, participate in the
execution of the study, and be involved in the analysis of observations collected. NASA
is committed to open sharing of flight data during all phases of the study (planning,
execution, and analysis) as well as capacity building opportunities for visiting scientists
and students.
ASIA-AQ primary observations will emphasize in situ measurements of trace gas and
aerosol composition mixing ratios, aerosol particle properties, and meteorological
parameters, as well as remote-sensing of trace gases with an airborne spectrometer
and lidar observations of ozone and aerosols.

A.19-2
The primary goal of this mission is to improve understanding of air quality in several
Asian megacities by evaluating the factors controlling daily air quality variability. This
study aims to integrate the different ways that emissions and air quality can be
observed and quantified using satellite, airborne, and surface observations combined
with state-of-the-art atmospheric chemical transport modeling systems.
3. Programmatic Information
3.1 Programmatic Priorities
Highest priority will be given to instrument proposals consistent with mission objectives
not supplied by NASA internal capabilities. The subset of measurements solicited for in
this ROSES element are shown in Table 1. Note that a more complete and
comprehensive list of prioritized measurements is available in the ASIA-AQ white paper.
Priorities are expressed as follows: 1 = required, 2 = desired, 3 = useful. For Priorities 1
and 2, instruments may be dedicated to a specific need. For Priority 3 observations,
these needs are typically met by instruments that also provide higher priority
measurements. Detection limit and resolution specifications must be met or exceeded
for a measurement to be useful. The suite of measurements identified as Priority 1 are
important science goals related to satellite validation and emissions assessment.
Priority 1 measurements also enable a high-level assessment of chemical evolution and
its representation in models. Priority 2 measurements allow for a more detailed
examination of aerosol and ozone chemistry by adding information on radical chemistry,
reservoir species for reactive compounds, and source-specific tracers. Priority 3
encompasses value-added observations, including measurements that could be easily
accomplished by groups already performing higher priority measurements and
measurements that would provide a more complete assessment of the radiative
environment.
Table A.19-1 NASA DC-8 Payload Measurement Priorities
Gas Phase In Situ Priority Detection Limit Resolution
O3 1 1 ppbv 1s
Comprehensive Speciated 1 Typically <5% 1s
NMHCs
Fast Speciated NMHCs 1 Typically <5% 1 min
NO 1 10 pptv 1s
NO2 1 20 pptv 1s
SO2 1 10 pptv 1s
NH3 1 30 pptv 1 min
H2O2 2 50 pptv 10 s
ROOH 2 50 pptv 10 s
CHOCHO 2 20 pptv 10 s
HNO3 2 50 pptv 10 s
HONO 2 10 pptv 1s
PANs 2 50 pptv 10 s
RONO2 2 50 pptv 10 s
CH3CN, HCN 2 10 pptv 1 min
OH, HO2, RO2 2 0.01/0.1/0.1 pptv 30 s

A.19-3
 OH reactivity 2 1 s-1 10 s
NOy 3 50 pptv 1s
Halocarbons 3 variable 1 min
N2O 3 1 ppbv 10 s
Organic Acids 3 10 pptv 10 s
Aerosol In Situ Priority Detection Limit Resolution
Ionic composition 1 50 ng m-3 5 min
Organic composition 1 100 ng m-3 1 min
Size-resolved composition 2 100 ng m-3 1 min
Single particle composition 3 <4 µm dia. 5 min
Radionuclides (222Rn,/7Be, 210Pb) 3 1/100/1 fCi m-3 5 min
Remote Sensing and Radiation Priority Detection Limit Resolution
UV spectral actinic flux (4π sr) 1 80° SZA equivalent 1s
Trace gases via MAX-DOAS 3 5s
(NO2, HCHO, HONO, SO2, etc.)
It is not appropriate to propose for significant new instrument development under this
call; however, consideration will be given for minor modifications and improvements to
existing instruments as may be required to address campaign goals and objectives.
Forecasting and modeling support for the ASIA-AQ execution and flight planning are
also being solicited. Priority will be given to proposals focusing on all elements of the
integrated air quality observing system (satellite, aircraft, ground, and model). However,
program resources to support these activities will be limited.
3.2 Funding Guidelines
Proposals may request funding to cover the personnel and materials costs associated
with preparation, field deployment, data processing, data analysis, and interpretive
modeling. Pure data analysis proposals that do not include components that contribute
to the study execution (e.g., measurements, forecasting, flight planning, etc.) will be
considered nonresponsive. Because it is not possible to accurately budget field
campaign travel costs until deployment details are finalized, proposers should not
include travel costs for science team meetings, integration, and deployment in the
proposal budget. Rather, proposers should submit a workforce plan for integration and
deployment, including the total number of personnel and their respective schedules
consistent with programmatic priorities. Proposals may include travel to conferences
taking place after the field campaign to present results.
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget ~$1 M in FY23; ~$3.4 M in FY24; ~$3.4 M in
for new awards. FY25; $2.4M in FY26
Number of new awards pending
~ 15
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 project years
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA

A.19-4
Recommended Start Date for
Awards
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program:
May 1, 2023
15 pages for standard proposals15 pp; see also
Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers.
This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of
ROSES-2022.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ASIAAQ
Barry Lefer
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-3857
Email: barry.lefer@nasa.gov
A.19-5
A.20 TERRESTRIAL HYDROLOGY
U

NOTICE: Proposers must use Earth Science division templates for the
required Summary Table of Work Effort and Current and Pending
Support sections of the proposal, see Section 3.
1. U Scope of Program
Please note that this section, Scope of the Program, describes the NASA Terrestrial
Hydrology Program, however it should not be used solely to guide proposers on
specifically what is sought this year (i.e., via ROSES 2022). The specific guidance on
what will be considered relevant under this ROSES-2022 element is found in Section 2,
below.
The NASA Terrestrial Hydrology program (THP) has the scientific objective to use
remote sensing to develop a predictive understanding of the role of water in land-
atmosphere interactions and to further the scientific basis of water resources
management. The NASA THP is a component of the Global Water and Energy Cycle
Focus Area (see Section 2.4 of program element A.1, the Earth Science Research
Program Overview).
THP uses NASA’s unique view from space to study hydrologic processes associated
with runoff production, hydrologic fluxes at the land-air interface, and terrestrial water
stores. THP works in concert with other Earth Science Division (ESD) programs, also
studying the global water cycle (e.g., precipitation, physical oceanography), to describe
and understand the connections between the cycle’s different parts. THP fosters the
development of hydrologic remote sensing theory, the scientific basis for new hydrologic
satellite missions, hydrologic remote sensing field experiments, and the interface of
hydrology with other disciplines, such as those addressed by the Terrestrial Ecology
program (see program element A.4). Particular emphasis is placed on the application of
satellite-based remotely sensed data for characterizing, understanding, and predicting
the terrestrially linked components of the hydrologic cycle and the dynamics of large-
scale river basins. THP furthers study of the relationship between satellite
interferometric measurements of surface deformation and changes in underground
water stores. THP, in partnership with the Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry
program, seeks to develop, improve, and incorporate methods of remote sensing of
water quality parameters of inland and coastal waters. THP is currently focused on
research relating to multiple missions, either currently operating, such as Global 15T

Precipitation Measurement ( GPM ), Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) and the
15T38T 15T38T 15T 38T 38T 38T 38T

Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On (GRACE-FO); or in planning and

development, such as Surface Water Ocean Topography (SWOT). THP projects are
also extensively using data collected at previous or current field campaigns and
projects, such as SMAPVEX
( http://smap.jpl.nasa.gov/science/validation/fieldcampaigns ), AirMOSS
28TU U28T

( http://airmoss.jpl.nasa.gov ), SnowEx ( https://snow.nasa.gov/campaigns/snowex ), or

28TU U28T 28T 28T

numerous others, both national and international.

THP continues to encourage use of NASA investments to improve the use of remote
sensing information in weather and climate models, primarily through data assimilation
approaches involving land surface models. The Land Information System (LIS;

A.20-1
http://lis.gsfc.nasa.gov ) provides a modeling test bed for potential investigations of this
28T 28T

domain, along with an entrée into activities of other U.S. agencies.

THP is one of the nation's programs supporting the Global Energy and Water Cycle
Exchanges Project (GEWEX) and the U.S. Global Research Program (USGCRP).
More information on current THP projects and plans, as well as links to related field
campaigns, can be found at mission and project specific websites, e.g.,
http://smap.jpl.nasa.gov/ , http://snow.nasa.gov , http://swot.jpl.nasa.gov/ .
28T 28T 28T 28T 28T 28T

2. Description of Solicited Research

2.1 Background
Water, specifically water in rivers, is uniquely coupled with the existence and
development of human society. River water is a critical component of the Earth System
and thus Earth System science. In addition to itself sustaining and providing for life,
rivers move biogeochemical components through the Earth System, as well as transport
sediments from the land to coastal and ocean environments. Rivers may bring benefits
and threats to life and prosperity; rivers provide recreation and transportation for goods,
but also can bring dangerous flooding or water harmful to drink. Yet, despite the
extremely integrated nature of rivers with society, many global rivers go under-
observed. Unknown prior, let alone current, information on river flow rates can pose
challenges to sectors of society that are not capable of withstanding denial of services
that might exist under low flow conditions or devasting flood water. NASA seeks to
address this threat to environmental justice.
2.2 Surface Water and Ocean Topography
NASA plans to launch the Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) Satellite
Mission in November 2022. Among the primary science objectives of the mission is to
“estimate the global change in river discharge at sub-monthly, seasonal, and annual
time scales.” To achieve this objective, the SWOT Science Team has developed
several algorithms to estimate discharge based on fundamental SWOT observations of
river water surface elevation, width, and slope. (More details on these algorithms have
recently been published by Durand et al. (2016), Gleason and Durand (2020), and
Frasson et al. (2021).) Their application will provide a global, remotely sensed dataset
of river discharge for all rivers greater than 100m width, a major advance in river
science.
Among the key properties of these algorithms is that they depend on a prior estimate of
river discharge, usually from a global river model. These prior estimates are often
biased, and although SWOT discharge algorithms can reduce this bias with time using
additional SWOT observations, they likely will not be able to eliminate it. As such, a
primary source of error in SWOT discharge estimates comes from these prior discharge
estimates rather than from SWOT measurement error or other sources.
The error in SWOT discharge estimates will be addressed, and reduced, over the prime
life of the mission using a variety of methods and auxiliary data sources, including
existing ground-based gauges of river attributes. Unfortunately, this results in the
longest time frame for correction to rivers that reside in areas of the world that are

A.20-2
under-observed (hydrologically and/or meteorologically speaking), reinforcing injustices
to those without the resources to know more about their environmental conditions,
opportunities, or threats.
It is, however, possible to address this external source of bias with the application of a
limited number of on-the-ground measurements of river discharge. A single in situ
discharge measurement, made coincidentally in space and time with a SWOT overpass,
will be able to substantially reduce bias for the entire SWOT time series at the
measured location. This improvement is anticipated not only for the river reach where
discharge is measured, but also for surrounding reaches due to the continuity of flow in
river networks. However, on-the-ground discharge data are currently unavailable for
many global rivers that will be observable by SWOT, delaying the utility of the SWOT
discharge measurement to address key science questions as well as use of the SWOT
data for environmentally-oriented decision making.
The anticipated extent of SWOT river observations are provided in the SWOT River
Database (SWORD), described by Altenau et al. (2021), and available at the following
link, http://gaia.geosci.unc.edu/SWORD/SWORD_v12.zip .
28T 28T

2.3 Research Solicited

The dearth of in situ hydrology-relevant observations in geographic domains with
vulnerable populations stymies science research of these regions. Through this
solicitation, NASA seeks to address this problem by enabling projects to take in-situ
observations, which the SWOT team can use to improve discharge estimates, which will
then be used by the funded research teams to understand better these under-observed
and under-characterized regions. As such, to be eligible proposals must both conduct
observations and a science investigation, see sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 that follow.
2.3.1 Observations
In order to improve the utility of SWOT discharge estimates for science investigations,
projects are solicited that will collect on-the-ground discharge measurements in portions
of the SWORD network that do not currently contain stream gauges with publicly
available data. Proposals are requested that will provide on-the-ground discharge
measurements made using an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) or similar high
accuracy technology using methods established by (or very similar to) those used by
the United States Geological Survey ( https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/3a22/pdf/tm3a22.pdf ).
2 8T 28T

Projects may also propose to collect other observations, such as measurements of

water quality that will be useful to address their science questions (see below).
Discharge measurements at each location should be made one or two times coincident
in space and time with a SWOT overpass. Projects may propose to focus on one
region, on multiple regions, or on targeted sites globally, but they are expected to
provide discharge measurements at multiple sites within a medium sized river basin.
Measurements should be proposed for regions under-observed, which results in large
uncertainty about current and near-term future river conditions. As such, measurement
regions outside the United States are strongly encouraged.
Selected teams will coordinate with the SWOT science team to ensure measurements
will be taken during a viable period. In general, it's anticipated that measurements can

A.20-3
be taken any time starting ninety days after the SWOT launch, though proposers should
be aware that SWOT will switch observing modes, from a one day repeat calibration
and validation orbit to its more nominative 21 day repeat science orbit, approximately
180 days after launch. All SWOT orbit data are available at the following link:
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/missions/future-missions/swot/orbit.html
28T 28T

2.3.2 Science Research

It should be noted that while conditional to future budgets determined by the U.S.
Congress, NASA does anticipate releasing a solicitation for SWOT-enabled science
research, sometime after its launch (potentially this could be found in ROSES-2023). As
such the science research component solicited here (via ROSES-2022) shall have
these more limiting, specific attributes.
1. Research proposed by the investigators must address a science question(s) that
resonates with THP (as defined in Section 1 above), where by doing so would
produce findings that would support the pursuit of environmental justice for at
least the river basin in which the in situ observations are to be taken.
2. As the purpose of the in-situ measurements is to improve the full SWOT time
series of river discharge for the observed region, the proposed study must make
critical use of SWOT discharge.
2.4 Important Attributes for Proposals
The following are critical components to consider when developing proposals. As such,
these may be taken under consideration during peer and programmatic review when
recommending funding selections.
To take full advantage of the reduction in errors in the SWOT produced river discharge,
the Terrestrial Hydrology Program also seeks to better prepare the community to use
these valuable observations. As such, NASA strongly encourages proposals to increase
the diversity of those participating in THP and SWOT efforts. Proposals from or
substantially involving co-investigators from minority serving institutions
( https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/edlite-minorityinst-list-tab.html ) are strongly
28T 28T

encouraged.
Proposers are reminded that a top priority for NASA, the Earth Science Division, and
the Terrestrial Hydrology Program is safety. Proposals should lay out a plan to: 1) instill
the ideology of safety in their field participants, and 2) document how the PI will ensure
everyone’s safety during field deployments. Projects that are selected can expect to
have a safety review with members of the THP and SWOT teams prior to conducting
any funded field work.
All in situ observations taken by selected projects will be made available to SWOT and
THP as soon as possible and with no period of exclusive use. Observations related to
improving the SWOT river discharge product will be needed by the SWOT science
team, so projects are recommended to ensure that they plan adequate staffing
resources to prepare and review their data so that it can be handed over quickly to
SWOT (nominally no more than 90 days from the time of observation).
Projects should anticipate that once selected, they will be working with members of the
SWOT project and science teams. Principal investigators should allow for some

A.20-4
flexibility in their proposed projects to take advisement from these teams. Also, as this
collaboration is expected, proposals need not list existing members of the SWOT
science and project teams as collaborators. Note, members of these SWOT teams are
allowed to participate in proposals as funded co-investigators as long as they would be
performing a role different from their pre-existing commitment to SWOT.
Finally, while the SWOT satellite is anticipated to launch in November 2022 and start
taking observations relevant to this solicitation within ninety days, this timeline may
change. THP will work with selected investigators to make changes to their funding
agreements to reflect any alterations to this schedule as they occur. If there are
components of proposed research that are time sensitive (e.g., aligning with a planned
field campaign of another entity) proposers should clearly note these time sensitive
attributes of their proposals.
3. Programmatic Information and Requirements
Funds available for work selected under this program element are $1.00M per annum to
support five (5) projects. Project start dates will be no earlier than February 1, 2023.
Proposals must contain the Earth Science standard template for detailing the level of
work effort of project participants and for the current and pending support of project
participants. These templates are available at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-science-division-appendix-a-
28T

roses-proposals . 28T

4. References
Altenau et al. (2021)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021WR030054
28T 28T

Durand et al. (2016)

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2015WR018434
28T 28T

Frasson et al. (2021)

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020WR028519
28T 28T

Gleason and Durand (2020) https://www.mdpi.com/678700

28T 28T

5. Table of Key Information

Expected total program budget for ~ $3.00 M
lifecycle of new awards
Number of investigator awards pending ~5
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to propose See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
28T 28T 28T 28T

(NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
28T 28T 28T 28T

Planning date for start of investigation March 1 st , 2023

P P

Page limit for the central 15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Science/Technical/Management section Summary of Solicitation and the NASA 28T

of proposal Guidebook for Proposers . 28T

A.20-5
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the submission
This program is relevant to the Earth
Science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant
to this program are, by definition, relevant
to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
See A.1 Earth Science Research Overview
and Section IV and Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation
See NSPIRES Online Help and Section
28T 28T

of proposals IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of

Solicitation
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is permitted.
Web site for submission of proposal via http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
28T 28T

NSPIRES available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or

28T 28T

(202) 479-9376)
Web site for submission of proposal via http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
28T 28T

Grants.gov support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)

28T 28T

Funding opportunity number for

downloading an application package NNH22ZDA001N-THP
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this Jared Entin
program Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-358-0275
Email: jared.k.entin@nasa.gov
28T 28T

A.20-6
A.21 SOIL MOISTURE ACTIVE-PASSIVE MISSION SCIENCE TEAM
U

NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in

ROSES this year. The next expected solicitation of this element would
be in ROSES-2023.
1. U Scope of Program
The NASA Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) mission ( https://smap.jpl.nasa.gov/ )
28TU U28T

primarily uses passive (radiometer) L-band microwave remote sensing to determine the
land surface soil moisture and freeze/thaw state. These measurements will advance
the study of the water, carbon, and energy cycles, both individually and at their points of
interconnection.
SMAP was launched as a result of the recommendation from the National Research
Council report Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the
Next Decade and Beyond ( http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id_11820 ).
28T 28T

The SMAP Science Team performs research that responds to the Decadal Survey
outlined science priorities for the SMAP mission, as well as enables pursuit of new
methods of exploiting SMAP’s observations for Earth System Science. These include:
1) Enabling advances in the study of water, carbon, and energy cycles,
especially on those topics that deal with the intersections of these cycles.
2) Exploring the impact of soil moisture variability and its role as the ‘memory’ for
the land surface, on weather and climate.
3) The role of soil moisture in floods, droughts, agricultural productivity, and
public health related concerns (e.g., vector borne diseases).
2. Point of Contact
Jared Entin
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-358-0275
Email: jared.k.entin@nasa.gov
28T 28T

A.21-1
A.22 W EATHER AND ATMOSPHERIC DYNAMICS
U

NOTICE: Amended July 21, 2022. This Amendment releases final text
for this program element which was previously listed as TBD. NOIs are
requested by September 16, 2022, and proposals are due November 2,
2022. Proposers must use the Earth Science templates for Work Effort
and Current and Pending Support, see Section 3.5.
1. U Scope of Program
The Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus Area (WADFA,
https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/programs/research-analysis/earth-weather )
33TU U33T

supports research to obtain accurate measurements of the atmosphere that help

improve the understanding and prediction of weather at local, regional, and global
scales. Weather includes meteorological phenomena ranging from localized
microphysical processes that occur in minutes, to global-scale phenomena that can last
an entire season. WADFA supports research to measure winds, temperature, humidity,
and pressure from space with the aim of improving the knowledge of the fundamental
processes that drive meteorological phenomena. As a result, this focus area is core to
the Agency’s goal of understanding of the Earth system, as the dynamic and
thermodynamic processes of Earth’s weather link to other focus areas in the Earth
Science Division.
This program element of ROSES-2022 solicits research using NASA data to advance
our understanding of processes relevant to WADFA. There are no limitations on the
spatial and geographic scope of solicited efforts, but studies must link to meteorological
and tropospheric phenomena. Proposed research should target processes that are
relevant to the spatiotemporal cadence of the observations; however, the incorporation
of methods that enable use of study observations to understand multi-scale phenomena
is not precluded. Proposals must explicitly focus on remote sensing, and may utilize
observations, reanalyses, assimilation, and model capabilities to perform the proposed
science.
2. Description of Solicited Research
This program element consists of two topical subelements. The first, Exploitation of
Airborne Field Campaign Measurements (Section 2.1), targets the modern analysis of
historic NASA airborne field campaign data with explicit links to NASA satellite data.
The second, Characterizing and Understanding Uncertainty in the Atmosphere (Section
2.2), aims to increase our understanding of NASA observations and the Earth system
by improving the utilization of uncertainty estimates throughout the scientific process.
Overlap across these two subelements is acceptable. However, the principal
investigator must pick a primary subelement under which the proposed effort is to be
considered.
2.1 Exploitation of Airborne Field Campaign Measurements
NASA has a long history of executing field campaigns to collect both in situ and
remotely sensed data, and these campaigns have natural links to the satellite assets of
the Agency. While this subelement likely will heavily leverage field campaigns that have

A.22-1
originated within the Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus Area (e.g., the Olympic
Mountain Experiment [OLYMPEX], NASA African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analyses
[NAMMA], Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes [GRIP], Tropical Cloud
Systems and Processes [TCSP], Polar Winds, Convective Processes Experiment
[CPEX] 2017, Convective Processes Experiment - Aerosols & Winds [CPEX-AW],
Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentinel [HS3], etc.), studies are not strictly limited to
WADFA campaigns and may incorporate campaigns that originated elsewhere within
the Earth Science Division, so long as the effort addresses the scientific objectives of
this solicitation and WADFA as a whole.
Specifically, this subelement seeks proposals that utilize existing NASA field campaign
data holdings ( https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov/ ) to perform new scientific analyses
33T 33T

targeting weather and atmospheric dynamics topics. These studies must target the
synergistic use of NASA airborne measurements in conjunction with satellite data to
better represent the multiscale nature of weather processes. Emphasis must be given to
NASA-relevant data holdings, as described in Section 3.2 of this document.
Relevant research topics must be explicitly tied to weather and/or atmospheric
dynamics scientific hypotheses. Studies may include, but are not limited to:
• Using airborne and surface-based observations to better understand unresolved
processes in spaceborne observations
• Characterizing the impacts of subscale surface variability on large-scale
meteorological processes
• Leveraging aircraft and satellite lightning measurements to better understand
how satellite-derived lightning climatologies can be directly linked to cloud
microphysics and process studies (e.g., links to convective
strengthening/weakening)
• Understanding the physical links between the free troposphere and the planetary
boundary layer from space by utilizing airborne measurements
• Synergistically incorporating airborne and satellite measurements in data
assimilation and/or modeling studies to improve the representation of
meteorological processes.
Proposals under this subelement must include explicit references to airborne data
collections that will be leveraged for the scientific studies.
2.2 Characterizing and Understanding Uncertainty in the Atmosphere
The understanding of processes that are of interest to WADFA is fundamentally limited
by the underlying accuracy and precision of the observations and methodologies that
we leverage. In many cases, these uncertainties are limiting, and the uncertainty
estimates are oversimplified and poorly exploited. This subelement seeks studies that
aim to better understand and utilize sources of uncertainty within the context of a larger
scientific question relevant to WADFA.
Proposals must present a scientific methodology in a manner that incorporates existing
NASA-relevant remote sensing data as laid out in Section 3.2. Studies that leverage
existing NASA-funded capabilities (e.g., agency-supported modeling and assimilation
capabilities, retrieval algorithms, or other scientific tools) are encouraged. The studies

A.22-2
must address a WADFA-relevant scientific hypothesis, and they must incorporate
methods that link the underlying uncertainty of the data and tools leveraged to the
scientific outcomes of the proposed effort. Studies may include, but are not limited to
• Developing and utilizing improved error models for observational process studies
• Leveraging advanced error models in retrieval or assimilation schemes (e.g.,
non-Gaussian methods, state-dependent errors, scale-aware errors, etc.) to
quantify the impact of NASA assets on characterizing the physical atmospheric
state
• Linking regions of high uncertainty in the atmospheric state to larger-scale time-
evolution of atmospheric processes and phenomena
• Exploiting new or underexploited information content from the NASA
observations, and linking this information to the reduction of uncertainty in
atmospheric processes or derived quantities.
If the proposed research is leveraging an existing NASA retrieval, assimilation, or
modeling capability, the proposal must identify which algorithms will be utilized and
explicitly include at least one collaborator who will demonstrate the ability for the tool to
be readily leveraged as part of the study. New products should not be proposed as part
of this subelement, though the implementation of new methodologies for scientific
purposes is acceptable.
3. Programmatic Guidelines
3.1 Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus
All proposals must demonstrate a clear focus of advancing the scientific understanding
of weather and atmospheric dynamics. The research solicited must explicitly target
objectives relevant to WADFA. Included in this scope are WADFA-relevant future
observables and objectives called out in the 2017 Earth Science Decadal Survey, see
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/24938/thriving-on-our-changing-planet-a-
33T

decadal-strategy-for-earth .
33T

Science team funding opportunities exist in other solicitations for many WADFA
missions. The use of observations from those efforts is not discouraged, but proposals
must outline the scientific basis that explains how such observations link to WADFA
objectives. This program element will not support incremental algorithmic advances
unless they are relevant to the objectives laid out in this solicitation.
Advancing the use of NASA observations in the context of data assimilation and
numerical weather prediction is a relevant scientific objective to WADFA and therefore
to this solicitation. However, the proposed studies must be relevant to the subelements
described above.
3.2 Remote Sensing Focus
Proposals must demonstrate a direct connection to remotely sensed data. Specifically,
studies must leverage data that either has been collected as part of the NASA program
of record or directly relates to future WADFA-relevant priorities laid out in the 2017
Earth Science Decadal Survey. Relevant data sources include:
• Remotely sensed data collected from NASA satellites either within or beyond

A.22-3
 WADFA
• Remotely sensed data collected from NASA instruments on partner/collaborative
satellite platforms (including the International Space Station [ISS])
• Airborne data collected as part of a NASA-sponsored field campaign
• Remotely sensed data acquired via the NASA Commercial Smallsat Data
Acquisition Program
• Non-NASA satellite observations, but only if the objective is to use these data to
inform decisions on WADFA-relevant observables defined in the 2017 Earth
Science Decadal Survey.
To be eligible for this opportunity, data in the categories above must be the primary
focus of the study. However, non-NASA data sources may also be leveraged as part of
the scientific research.
3.3 Programmatic Priorities
Funding for selected proposals will be provided by the Weather and Atmospheric
Dynamics Program, explicitly following the guidelines set out in this program element.
Additional limited funding ($300K overall) is available to support science utilizing the ISS
Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS). Those additional funds will be incorporated into the
selection process as is deemed programmatically appropriate and may be applied to
proposals pertaining to either subelement.
3.4 Proposals Requesting NASA High-End Computing Resources
Proposers interested in using high-end computing (HEC) resources should consult A.1 33T

the Earth Science Research Overview , Section 5.4 High-End Computing, Networking,
33T

and Storage; and Section I(e) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation , for a
33T 33T

summary of HEC offerings and guidance on requesting computing time.

3.5 Documenting Work Effort and Current and Pending Support
Proposers must use the Earth Science Division’s standard template for detailing the
level of work effort and current and pending support of the project participants. The
template is available at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-
33T

science-division-appendix-a-roses-proposals . 33T

4. Summary of Key Information

Expected program budget for first ~ $1.25M, plus $300K dedicated to ISS-LIS
year of new awards science
Number of new awards pending 8-12
adequate proposals of merit
Award duration 3 years
Due date for NOI See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
33T 33T 33T 33T

Due date for Proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
33T 33T 33T 33T

Planning date for start of

6 months after the proposal due date
investigation

A.22-4
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of Contact concerning this
program both of whom share this
postal address:
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022
33T 33T
This program is relevant to the Earth science
strategic questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
33T
Overview , and Section IV of the ROSES
33T
Summary of Solicitation, and Table 1 of 33T
ROSES-2022 . 33T
See NSPIRES Online Help , the NASA
33T 33T 33T
Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) of
33T
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-WEATHER
Will McCarty
Email: will.mccarty@nasa.gov and
33T 33T
Aaron Piña
Email: aaron.pina@nasa.gov
33T 33T
A.22-5
A.23 EARTH SURFACE AND INTERIOR
NOTICE: This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan
Pilot Program, see Section 3.3. This Inclusion Plan will not be part of
the adjectival ratings nor selection recommendations for this
opportunity.
This program element requires use of the Earth Science Division
templates for reporting Work Effort and Current and Pending Support,
see Section 3.3.
1. Scope of Program
NASA's Earth Surface and Interior (ESI) focus area (http://science.nasa.gov/earth-
science/focus-areas/surface-and-interior) supports research and analysis of solid-Earth
processes and properties from crust to core. The overarching goal of ESI is to use
NASA's unique capabilities and observational resources to better understand the
structure and dynamics of the core, mantle, and lithosphere, and interactions between
these processes and Earth’s fluid envelopes.
ESI studies provide the basic understanding and data products needed to inform the
assessment, mitigation, and forecasting of natural hazards, including earthquakes,
tsunamis, landslides, and volcanic eruptions. These investigations also exploit the time-
variable signals associated with other natural and anthropogenic perturbations to the
Earth system, including those connected to natural resources.
ESI's Space Geodesy Program (SGP) produces observations that refine our knowledge
of Earth's shape, rotation, orientation, and gravity, advancing our understanding of the
motion and rotation of tectonic plates, elastic properties of the crust and mantle, mantle-
core interactions, solid-Earth tides, and the effects of surface loading resulting from
surface water, ground water, glaciers, and ice sheets. SGP infrastructure enables the
establishment and maintenance of a precise terrestrial reference frame that is
foundational to many Earth missions and location-based observations.
2. Description of Solicited Research
ESI requests the following types of research investigations this year. Pending sufficient
availability of funds, it is NASA's intent to update these foci and compete this element
on an annual basis to best address scientific and programmatic priorities:
1. Innovative Solid-Earth Science: Studies addressing the seven challenges from
NASA's Challenges and Opportunities for Research in ESI (CORE) Report (2016)
(http://go.nasa.gov/2hmZLQO), or the ESI science objectives identified in the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Decadal Survey, Thriving on Our Changing
Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space (2018)
(https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24938).
1.1. Hypothesis-Driven Research: Innovative remote-sensing research focused
on resolving hypotheses related to ESI science objectives.
1.2. Enabling Capabilities: Efforts that produce innovative community tools or
data products essential to advancing the ESI science objectives.
2. Strengthening ESI Community Knowledge and Skills: New ESI-relevant activities
that advance graduate student and/or postdoctoral researcher capabilities and
A.23-1
 broaden community awareness of the ESI mission. Prospective proposers must
contact the program point of contact to discuss the relevance of their proposal.
This year proposers will be required to submit a maximum of two additional pages
dedicated to an inclusion plan that focuses on how diversity and inclusion will be
addressed in the research team and the community. See Section 3.3. for further details.
This year’s solicited topics are described further in Section 2 below. Additional context
for research under these topics continues to derive from the objectives for solid-Earth
science presented in several strategic documents. In particular, the CORE Report and
the Decadal Survey provide the latest comprehensive input to ESI's vision.
The CORE Report identifies seven scientific challenges: 1) what is the nature of
deformation associated with plate boundaries and what are the implications for
earthquakes, tsunamis, and other related natural hazards; 2) how do tectonic processes
and climate variability interact to shape Earth's surface and create natural hazards; 3)
how does the solid Earth respond to climate-driven exchange of water among Earth
systems and what are the implications for sea-level change; 4) how do magmatic
systems evolve, under what conditions do volcanoes erupt, and how do eruptions and
volcano hazards develop; 5) what are the dynamics of Earth's deep interior and how
does Earth's surface respond; 6) what are the dynamics of Earth's magnetic field and its
interactions with the rest of Earth system; and 7) how do human activities impact and
interact with Earth's surface and interior?
These and other ESI interests underpinning this year's solicited topics are described in
greater detail in the strategic documents listed below:
● The report SCIENCE 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence
(https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy)
● The NAS report Evolving the Geodetic Infrastructure to Meet New Scientific
Needs (2020) (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25579/evolving-the-geodetic-
infrastructure-to-meet-new-scientific-needs)
● The report Measuring the Restless Earth: Grand Challenges in Geodesy (2019)
(https://www.unavco.org/community/publications_and_reports/community-
vision/geodesy_science_plan/measuring-the-restless-earth.pdf)
● The NAS Decadal Survey, Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy
for Earth Observation from Space (2018) (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24938)
● The NAS report Volcanic Eruptions and Their Repose, Unrest, Precursors, and
Timing (2017) (https://doi.org/10.17226/24650)
● The NASA CORE Report (2016) (http://go.nasa.gov/2hmZLQO)

2.1 Innovative Solid-Earth Science

This subsection seeks innovative contributions to advancing the CORE Report’s seven
scientific challenges and the ESI science objectives identified in the Decadal Survey.
The two topics under this subsection may include high-risk, high-impact research. High-
risk research tests novel and significant hypotheses for which there is limited precedent
or preliminary data, or that are counter to the existing scientific consensus. High-impact
research has outcomes, if confirmed, that would have a substantial and measurable

A.23-2
effect on current thinking, methods, or practice. Proposals are required to identify
potential risks and mitigation strategies.
Successor proposals submitted under this subsection must clearly identify prior related
ESI awards, describe associated project scope, and describe relevant achievements
made during the course of the previous work. Such proposals should further
demonstrate how the follow-on work would enable new approaches to interpreting
remote sensing data and/or substantially improved knowledge of the solid Earth not
realized during those prior studies.
2.1.1 Hypothesis-Driven Research
This topic calls for innovative remote-sensing research focused on resolving hypotheses
related to ESI science objectives. Overarching themes of interest include leveraging
advances in technology and associated data to address new solid-Earth science
questions, or revisit existing paradigms. These themes also include advancing our
understanding of how the solid Earth is linked to and interacts with the broader Earth
system, including understanding the impact of human activities and their interaction with
the solid-Earth, which can both benefit society and provide avenues for innovative
research. Proposals that employ new approaches to addressing questions focused on a
particular component of the solid-Earth system described in the CORE Report or
Decadal Survey are also welcomed. All studies must include testable hypotheses and
demonstrate a focus for the proposed work on advancing the understanding of the solid
Earth.
2.1.2 Enabling Capabilities
The acquisition of unique datasets, development of community toolkits, and creation of
open-source product streams accelerate the advancement of ESI science. Such efforts
can leverage the expertise of a few to enable discovery by many. This topic calls for
development of such enabling capabilities. Given the ESI focus on improving
understanding of the solid Earth, proposals should directly identify the scientific
advancements that the work will enable. Proposals with stronger connections between
capabilities development and enabled science will receive higher priority. Connections
to existing or future NASA missions are also encouraged. Technical advancements
should either be integrated into the existing open-source capabilities, or the proposal
should otherwise justify their uniqueness. All proposals should clearly describe how they
will meet NASA Open-source science principles (https://science.nasa.gov/open-
science-overview).
Proposals that develop new and innovative analysis techniques that utilize satellite data
from missions prioritized for other disciplines (e.g., ICESat-2, GEDI, ECOSTRESS) or
result in data streams or products that may also benefit other disciplines, are also
welcomed. All studies must still demonstrate a focus for the proposed work on
advancing the understanding of the solid Earth.
2.2 Strengthening ESI Community Knowledge and Skills
NASA observations enable unique contributions towards advancing our understanding
of the solid Earth, but only a small cross section of Earth scientists exploit these data.
Broadening awareness of and access to the ESI mission and associated resources,

A.23-3
coupled with scientific, technical, and/or communications training, is essential for
sustainability of the community and could stand to grow the scientific impact of NASA
investments.
This topic calls for new activities that strengthen knowledge and skills of graduate
students and/or postdoctoral researchers in the domain of ESI research. Critical
challenges include awareness of how NASA contributes to scientific goals of interest to
the broader community, the steep learning curve for accessing and utilizing NASA data,
and lack of documentation for tools and workflows that facilitate the latter. Online
tutorials, open-source coding projects (e.g., Jupyter Notebooks), social media as a
dissemination platform, short courses, and workshops targeting students are examples
of activities that can help to meet these goals. Proposals may consider leveraging
existing educational platforms or other community activities, but in doing so must
present a strong case for wholly new ESI-oriented impacts for graduate students and/or
postdoctoral fellows.
Proposals should, at a minimum, include details on the types of activities and/or
materials envisioned, selection processes for outside participants, leadership and
oversight, logistics, and a detailed budget for all efforts. Proposals must also include a
plan, specific team-member expertise, and associated resources for developing,
collecting, and assessing metrics that inform the impact of the proposed activities.
NASA anticipates making one to two awards under this subsection, depending on
proposal quality and relevance. Collaboration between educational institutions and
NASA Centers is strongly encouraged. Only topics with a focus relevant to ESI research
will be considered responsive. Prospective proposers are required to contact the
program point of contact to discuss the relevance of their proposal prior to submission.
3. Programmatic Guidelines
3.1 Solid-Earth Research Focus
A clear focus on advancing scientific understanding of solid-Earth processes and/or
properties is required in all proposals.
3.2 Remote Sensing Focus
Substantive connection to remote sensing data is required in all proposals. Proposers
are encouraged to utilize existing or planned ground, airborne, and space-based
observational capabilities and their associated data sets. Such data may come from
NASA, international space agency, or other partner sources. These resources include,
but are not limited to:
● new EarthDEM high-resolution digital surface model timeseries and mosaics
(https://www.pgc.umn.edu/data/earthdem/), the existing high-resolution SRTM
dataset, and ongoing satellite and airborne Lidar (e.g., ICESat-2, GEDI, and
LVIS), that provide structural and compositional imaging to inform tectonic and
climatic influences on evolving terrains;
● satellite and airborne optical and thermal spectral imaging such as ASTER,
MODIS, VIIRS, ECOSTRESS, MASTER, HyTES, and AVIRIS that can be used
in mineral mapping, measuring land surface temperatures, assessing land
surface dynamics and paleoseismicity, and identifying products of volcanic

A.23-4
 activity;
● geodetic observations utilizing GPS/GNSS, SAR, and InSAR, including the
airborne UAVSAR facility (L-band, P-band AirMOSS, and Ka-band GLISTIN-A)
and the Indian Space Research Organisation’s L+S band Airborne Synthetic
Aperture Radar (ASAR) that provide insights into dynamic processes; and
ongoing and future missions such as ALOS-2/4, Sentinel-1, TerraSAR-X,
COSMO-SkyMed, RCM, and NISAR that provide additional and upcoming
opportunities in this realm; and
● magnetic and gravity missions, such as the historical SAC-C, Øersted, CHAMP,
GOCE, and GRACE, and ongoing Swarm and GRACE-FO, that offer long-term
geopotential records that inform models of the geodynamo and the structure,
composition, and dynamics of the Earth's mantle, lithosphere, and fluid
envelopes.
These and other NASA datasets that are relevant to this call are cataloged in the Earth
Observing System Data and Information System (EOSIDS) (https://earthdata.nasa.gov).
and provided by the DAACs.
3.3 Inclusion Plan
An Inclusion Plan, not to exceed two pages and immediately following the Data
Management Plan, is required in all proposals. Inclusion is a core NASA value, and
diversity and inclusion are prioritized in Strategy 4.1 from A Vision for Scientific
Excellence (formerly known as the Science Plan). NASA defines diversity broadly as
"The entire universe of differences and similarities" and inclusion as "the full
participation, belonging, and contribution of organizations and individuals." SMD
believes in the importance of diverse and inclusive teams to tackle strategic problems
and maximize scientific return, and ESI seeks to promote such opportunities and
benefits across the solid-Earth science community. Proposers are encouraged to:
● identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for
those carrying out the proposed investigation;
● address ways in which the investigation team will work against these barriers to
create and sustain such an environment, such as fostering communication and
openness amongst the team, involving under-represented groups in proposal
activities, etc.;
● discuss contributions the proposed investigation will make to the training and
development of a diverse and inclusive scientific workforce, and clearly define
roles and responsibilities for all team members towards pursuing those goals;
● consider involvement of organizations and institutions that support and serve
under-represented groups including, but not limited to, Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and Other
Minority Universities. A resource that some proposers may find useful in this
regard is the NASA MSI Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
● identify and address other topics related to diversity, equity, accessibility, and
inclusion that the proposing team has identified and seeks to resolve.
All efforts identified under the Inclusion Plan should have clearly stated goals, activities
to achieve those goals, and metrics for measuring progress during the award period. If

A.23-5
additional funding is needed to implement the plan, it should be included and justified in
the budget. Note that even though the assessment of the inclusion plan will not be part
of the adjectival grade for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals,
funding will be released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory inclusion plan is
approved by the NASA Program Manager of his program element. If additional funding
is needed to implement the inclusion plan, it should be stated and included and justified
in the budget. SMD plans to invite comments regarding this pilot program from
reviewers and proposers after the review is completed.
3.4 Proposals Requesting Acquisition of New Airborne Data
Proposals requiring data from airborne sensors must detail in their cost plan all costs for
acquiring the new data sets, including costs for aircraft hours, deployment costs,
mission peculiar costs, data processing costs, and other costs associated with
deploying the sensors and aircraft (this includes NASA and non-NASA sensors and
platforms). In addition, for any proposed activities requiring NASA aircraft or NASA
facility sensors, proposers should submit a Placeholder Flight Request to the Airborne
Science Flight Request system (https://airbornescience.nasa.gov). Funding associated
with the use of NASA aircraft and facility sensors will be sent directly to the responsible
NASA center, not to the awardee, and should be accounted for as a government bypass
under Other Direct Costs. If the instrument or aircraft are not NASA facilities, proposers
must take responsibility for making all arrangements to secure the availability of the
needed sensors and aircraft and explain these plans in the proposal.
3.5 Proposals Requesting NASA High-End Computing Resources
Interested proposers should consult A.1 the Earth Science Research Overview, Section
5.3 High-End Computing, Networking, and Storage; and the Summary of Solicitation,
Section I(e), for a summary of HEC offerings and guidance on requesting computing
time.
3.6 Participation in the NASA Solid-Earth Team Meeting
All proposals should include funds for participation in a biennial two-day NASA solid-
Earth team meeting to be held on the west coast. This meeting will bring together
current and prospective ESI investigators, technologists, and related members of the
scientific community to report on research results and engage in strategic workshops to
advance opportunities for the solid-Earth and geodesy research communities.
Awardees are required to attend.
3.7 Documenting Work Effort and Current and Pending Support
Work Effort and Current and Pending Support for PIs and Co-Is must be documented
using the templates available on the SARA webpage
(https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-science-division-appendix-a-
roses-proposals).
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget ~$3M
for new awards

A.23-6
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Notice of Intent to
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
~15-20
3 years
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
January 1, 2023
15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation.
This program is relevant to the Earth science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ESI
Benjamin R. Phillips
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-5693
Email: ben.phillips@nasa.gov
A.23-7
A.24 RAPID RESPONSE AND NOVEL RESEARCH IN EARTH SCIENCE
U U

NOTICE: Before any work is begun on a proposal to this program,

potential proposers should read the first section entitled Important
Caveat to Potential Proposers.
1. U Important Caveat to Potential Proposers
Before any effort is expended in preparing a proposal, potential proposers should:
• Read this solicitation in its entirety. It has a number of specific requirements.
Failure to meet them will result in a proposal being returned without review.
• Understand that NASA reserves the right to return or decline proposals to this
solicitation based on internal review with limited feedback to the proposers.
• The Earth Science Division (ESD) has not reserved any funds dedicated to this
solicitation, but anticipates that its individual programs will consider support of a
very small number of meritorious proposals each year.
• Prior to proposal submission, contact the most relevant NASA program officer
( http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list/#earth ) and the
33TU U33T

current Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science (RRNES)

program officer (listed below). Proposers that forego this step run an increased
risk of having their proposals declined or returned without review.
• Proposals should normally be for support of one year or less, under the
assumption that further work will be proposed to another program.
• This solicitation is not intended to support mitigation of active disasters or
immediate hazards. Contact the Disasters Program Manager in NASA’s Applied
Sciences Division and/or the other most relevant NASA program manager
directly to discuss expedited options
( http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list/#earth ).
33T 33T

• While the ESD does its best to review proposals quickly, because of the funding
nature of this solicitation sometimes a response may take longer than
anticipated.
• Note that support for "limited duration opportunity for an unanticipated research
collaboration," which had been included in earlier versions of the RRNES
solicitation, has been eliminated. Proposers interested in support for such
activities should contact their NASA program manager directly to see if support
can be arranged by another method.
2. Introduction
In order to address its strategic goals and objectives (see Section I of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation), the ESD of the Science Mission Directorate (SMD)
acknowledges that there are important and highly relevant research topics and
opportunities that cannot be anticipated in the annual ROSES solicitation. In particular,
it is usually not possible to solicit the following two types of activities:
• Immediate research activity to take advantage of a target of opportunity due to an
unforeseen event in the Earth system,
• Exceptionally novel and innovative ideas to advance Earth remote sensing that
do not fit within ESD’s current slate of solicitations and/or programs.

A.24-1
ESD has not reserved any funds dedicated to this solicitation, but anticipates that its
individual programs will consider support of a very small number of meritorious
proposals each year.
3. Scope of Program
This program element solicits proposals that advance the goals and objectives of
NASA's Earth Science Division by conducting unique research to investigate 1)
unforeseen or unpredictable Earth system events and opportunities that require a rapid
response, and 2) novel ideas of potential high merit and relevance for ESD science to
advance Earth remote sensing that have not otherwise been solicited by NASA in the
past three years.
3.1 Rapid Response to Earth System Events
This subelement is focused on research proposals having great urgency for action
involving quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic extreme events and/or
similar unanticipated or unpredictable events that fall outside the norm. Examples are
major fires, volcanic eruptions, 100-year floods, episodes of severe and large-scale
environmental pollution, harmful algal blooms, coral bleaching events, and other
unexpected large-scale events causing rapid environmental change.
The research activities proposed must require rapid, near-term data acquisition, field
work, and/or other such research activities. Given the significance of these events, rapid
sharing of data and results are expected. Proposers should contact the NASA program
officer(s) whose expertise best matches the proposal topic before submitting a proposal,
in order to determine whether the proposed work is appropriate for this ROSES program
element and if funding is likely to be available for a meritorious proposal.
The proposal must include clear statements as to 1) why the proposed research is of an
urgent nature, 2) why the proposed research is of high significance and likely to have a
long-lasting impact, 3) why this ROSES program element is the only feasible
mechanism to request NASA support for the proposed work, and 4) a detailed plan on
data dissemination and sharing.
Please note that this element is not intended to support mitigation of active disasters or
immediate hazards. Please contact the Disasters Program Manager in NASA’s Applied
Sciences Division and or the other most relevant NASA program manager directly to
discuss expedited options ( http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-
33T

list/#earth ).
33T

3.2 Novel Ideas in Earth Remote Sensing

This subelement is intended to provide an open, systematic, competitive process for
NASA’s ESD to consider proposals for exceptionally novel scientific research that
includes remote sensing of the Earth which is not responsive to any other current or
recent NASA solicitation (see below). ESD recognizes that such proposals offer the
possibility for major scientific breakthroughs and new approaches to remote sensing
and knowledge of the Earth system. ESD offers this subelement as a mechanism for
researchers to develop their ideas and justify near-term investment through an

A.24-2
important new capability or scientific application that will advance ESD goals and
objectives.
Proposals must focus on topics that offer fundamental scientific research to advance
Earth remote sensing, including new ways of interpreting remote sensing data or
improving knowledge of the Earth system and its processes. Proposals may include
calibration and validation work, as appropriate.
Proposals that focus on instrument or technology development, data and information
systems research, or educational activities are strongly discouraged.
If the topic is relevant to any other ESD ROSES program element(s), it should not be
submitted here, but should be submitted to the relevant element. In addition, in order for
a proposal to be considered responsive as novel Earth science, the topic and approach
must not have been solicited or have been considered responsive under any NASA
solicitations during the past three years (this includes ROSES, NASA Announcements
of Opportunity, etc.). Any proposal that contains research that in the view of cognizant
NASA managers violates one or both of these requirements will be considered as
nonresponsive and declined without further review.
NASA anticipates that only a very small number of proposals will meet these criteria
each year and that selection and funding of such proposals will be a rare, but a
strategically important occurrence.
4. Relevance to SMD’s Goals and Objectives
Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must demonstrate the relevance of
the proposed activity to ESD by showing how the Scientific/Technical area(s) to be
covered will advance not only high-level ESD goals and objectives, but also specific
(existing or anticipated) outcomes identified in ROSES program elements, ESD
roadmaps, other ESD program documents, the NASA Science Plan, findings in decadal
surveys, or the reports of NASA advisory bodies or groups relevant to NASA. Proposers
must explicitly state from what source (e.g., ROSES program element, roadmap, or
decadal survey) the claim of relevance derives. Proposers are referred to A.1 the Earth
Science Research Overview in this solicitation for a description of the scope of NASA
Earth Science activities and the research programs areas and topics of interest. To be
relevant under this program element, proposals must take into consideration ESD’s
defined scope and its focus on the use of airborne and/or space-based measurements
to provide information about the Earth system.
5. Programmatic Information and Additional Requirements
5.1 Proposal Structure, Content, and Budget Requests
Prior to any submission, proposers should contact the ESD program managers
( http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list/#earth ) whose expertise
33T 33T

are most germane to the proposal topic to determine the appropriateness of the work for
consideration under this program element. This may include consideration of whether
funding is potentially available.

A.24-3
 5.1.1 Proposals for Rapid Response to Earth System Events
The Technical Plan for proposals submitted for rapid response is limited to a maximum
of five pages and must include clear statements as to why the proposed research is of
an urgent nature and why this solicitation is the only feasible mechanism to request
NASA support for the proposed work, as well as the other requirements listed in the text
of the subelement. The bulk of the Technical Plan should be devoted to describing the
core scientific objectives and anticipated scientific return, the research work to be done,
and the timetable for rapid actions. If NASA facilities will be required to conduct the
research (e.g., NASA aircraft or airborne sensors), proposers should contact the
relevant facility managers to develop feasibility and cost estimates in parallel with the
preparation of their proposal. Feasibility and cost estimates should be submitted as part
of the budget justification.
Questions regarding the NASA flight request system or processes should be addressed
to Marilyn Vasques, Flight Request Manager ( Marilyn.Vasques@nasa.gov or 650-604-
33T 33T

6120).
To ensure timely processing of the submitted proposal, "Rapid Response" must be
selected as the Primary Investigation Type on the proposal cover sheet. On the cover
sheet, the relevant program manager/program under which the proposal should be
considered should also be indicated.
NASA will initially conduct an internal review of each proposal that may result in a
decision, and there may be limited feedback to the proposer. Some proposals may be
declined simply for lack of available funding. However, proposals may also be subject to
external peer review at the discretion of NASA. The larger the requested funding, the
more comprehensive (e.g., the use of external mail review) the review is likely to be.
Budget requests should be commensurate with the nature of the rapid response work to
be conducted and, if no other research projects are being leveraged, include sufficient
funding for processing of the data and its public distribution, as well as minimal data
analysis to achieve the core, near-term objectives of the rapid response. Full
exploitation of a successfully acquired data set can be included in future competitive
ROSES disciplinary program elements and should not be requested here.
Proposals should normally be for support of one year or less, under the assumption that
further work will be proposed to one of the ongoing research programs or one of the
other periodic ROSES elements (e.g., competed mission science teams,
Interdisciplinary Science, etc.). Up to three years of funding may be requested, but
proposals requesting more than one year of funding must provide specific and
compelling justifications as to why the core, rapid response science objectives require a
longer duration for completion.
5.1.2 Proposals for Novel Ideas in Earth Remote Sensing
The Technical Plan for Novel Ideas in Earth Remote Sensing proposals is limited to a
maximum of 15 pages and must include clear statements as to why the proposed
scientific research is novel and not responsive to any other NASA solicitations released
in the past three years. The technical plan should emphasize the initial research
activities needed to explore the feasibility of the new idea, prove the concept, and/or

A.24-4
provide a first demonstration of the potential utility and benefits to NASA Earth science,
as well as the other requirements listed in the text of the subelement. Potential
proposers are encouraged to pay close attention to the types of research that are
discouraged for this area as noted in Section 3.2 ("instrument or technology
development, data and information systems research, or educational activities").
It is anticipated that most such studies will be conducted in one year at modest cost
(e.g., ~$75-$150K), and that continued funding would be sought from proposals
submitted to open research programs or periodic ROSES elements (e.g., competed
mission science teams, Interdisciplinary Science, etc.). However, up to three years may
be requested, but the proposal must fully justify the need for that length of time. In
addition, all proposals must describe plans for the
publication/documentation/dissemination of their results at the earliest possible date.
NASA will initially conduct an internal review of each proposal that may result in a
decision, and there may be limited feedback to the proposer. Some proposals may be
declined simply for lack of available funding. In some cases, NASA will, at its discretion,
conduct a full peer-review of the proposal, most likely involving individual evaluations
submitted through NSPIRES. However, if sufficient proposals are received, NASA
reserves the right to convene a peer review panel. NASA’s standard evaluation criteria
will be used in reviewing these proposals. The uniqueness of the research proposed
and the degree of innovation will be weighed heavily under the intrinsic merit criterion,
as well as under relevance.
5.2 Availability of Funding
No specific budget is identified for this program element; selected proposals will be
funded by the ESD program managers in the disciplines most closely related to or
benefitting from the proposed work. The number of proposals selected will be
dependent on the availability of funds, as well as the number and quality of proposals
submitted.
Potential proposers should contact both the NASA Point of Contact for this solicitation
and the ESD Program Officers in the disciplines and programs most germane to the
proposed investigations to discuss the proposed work and the availability of funds.
Contact information for SMD Program Officers is available at
http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list/#earth or in the Summary
33T 33T

Information table at the end of a ROSES program element description.

5.3. Award Instruments
Awards selected under this solicitation will only be supported as a grant, a cooperative
agreement, an interagency agreement, or internal funding to a NASA Center. Contracts
will not be used for these awards.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget No specific budget is identified; selected
for new awards proposals will be funded by the relevant
program(s).

A.24-5
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Notice of Intent to
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
The number of proposals selected will be
dependent on the availability of funds from the
relevant program(s), as well as the number and
quality of proposals submitted.
3 years (but see Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2)
No Notices of Intent are requested for this
program element.
Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 PM (Eastern time) on March 29, 2023.
No sooner than 1 ½ months after proposal
receipt for Rapid Response, and 6 months after
proposal receipt for Novel Earth Science.
5 pp for Rapid Response and 15 pp for Novel
Earth Science; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and the current NASA
33T
Guidebook for Proposers 33T
See Section 4. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See Table 1 and Section IV of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and A.1 The Earth
Science Division Research Overview.
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4
33T 33T
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
33T 33T
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
33T 33T
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
33T 33T
9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-RRNES
Laura Lorenzoni
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0917
Email: laura.lorenzoni@nasa.gov
33T 33T
A.24-6
A.24-7
A.25 AIRBORNE INSTRUMENT TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
NOTICE: Amended June 28, 2022. This Amendment announces that
Airborne Instrument Technology Transition will not be solicited in
ROSES-2022. It is anticipated that it will be solicited next no earlier than
ROSES-2024.
The Airborne Instrument Technology Transition (AITT) program may
release a solicitation for proposals later this year in ROSES-2022. If the
AITT program releases a solicitation in ROSES-2022, the due date for
AITT proposals will be no fewer than 90 days after the solicitation is
released.
1. Scope of Program
NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD) aims to further develop observational techniques
and instrument technologies needed to implement our scientific objectives. These
instruments are operated in the laboratory and from suborbital (i.e., surface, balloon,
and aircraft) and space-based platforms to support science investigations. In many
cases, airborne data are used to increase basic process knowledge and, in other
applications, airborne data products are incorporated into complex computational
models that characterize the present state and future evolution of the Earth System.
Within Earth Science Division (ESD), the Airborne Science Program (ASP) and the
Research and Analysis (R&A) program are both responsible for providing airborne
instrument systems capable of delivering data products that advance science and that
complement other observing assets, such as satellites. This is accomplished primarily
through focused field experiments for process studies, evaluation and risk retirement of
new instrument concepts, and calibration and validation of space-based sensors.
This announcement seeks to help instruments developed under NASA’s Instrument
Incubator Program, or by similar NASA programs or activities, become ready for
scientific use on various platforms supported by the NASA ASP. This opportunity
provides for engineering activities leading to the integration of instruments to airborne
platforms that will deploy them as part of organized ESD R&A science campaigns which
typically involve multiple instruments and/or platforms. The goal is to help existing
operating instruments (with little-to-no previous flight testing) become ready to
participate in R&A airborne field campaigns. No funding is available for research and
development of new instrumentation. No AITT funding is available to upgrade or
downsize existing flight instruments. Management of the tasks selected in response to
these Airborne Instrument Technology Transition calls is carried out in conjunction with
the Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO), which has significant experience in
management of technology-oriented tasks through programs such as the Instrument
Incubator Program. A fuller description of ESTO and its activities is included in A.1 the
Earth Science Research Overview.
Proposals submitted to this announcement shall support the objectives of one or more
of the Earth science focus areas. Earth science focus areas include: Carbon Cycle and
Ecosystems, Climate Variability and Change, Water and Energy Cycle, Atmospheric
Composition, Weather, and Earth Surface and Interior (see Appendix A.1 for

A.25-1
descriptions of the focus areas). Relevance to these focus areas is indicated by the
degree to which instrument products (i.e., science and engineering data) support the
goals and activities of existing and future field campaigns sponsored by the NASA
Research and Analysis program; it may also be demonstrated by relevance to the goals
and activities of NASA’s Applied Science Program. Examples of previous field
campaigns can be found at the Airborne Science Website.
Proposers may find information on selections from previous calls for this element on the
NSPIRES web pages for prior instances of this call, e.g., information about the awards
from proposals submitted in 2019 may be downloaded here.
The following documents identify the relevant missions and programs for this program:
1. Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next
Decade and Beyond may be accessed on the web at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11820.html. This report is hereinafter referred to as
the "Decadal Survey."
2. SCIENCE 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence accessible on the web at
https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy.
3. NASA missions listed in the table found at http://science.nasa.gov/earth-
science/missions/.
2. Point of Contact
Barry Lefer
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-3857
Email: Barry.Lefer@nasa.gov

A.25-2
A.26 22TU EARTH SCIENCE U.S. PARTICIPATING INVESTIGATOR
NOTICE: Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using
a dual-anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared
according to the guidelines in Section 2.4 and in the associated
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other
Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
1. U Scope of Program
NASA makes use of space-based, surface-based, airborne, and balloon-based
measurements, as well as a broad suite of observations (both space-based and other)
made by our interagency and international partners to address the science questions
articulated in the 2020 Science Plan for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate
27TU U27T

(hereafter, the NASA Science Plan). Particular interest is given to having close
connections with the satellite observations of international partners, especially as
coordinated through the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites
( http://www.ceos.org/ ), as well as other international bodies, such as the Coordination
27T 27T

Group for Meteorological Satellites ( http://www.cgms-info.org/ ) and the World

27T 27T

Meteorological Organization ( https://public.wmo.int/en/programmes/wmo-space-

27T

programme ). 27T

NASA solicits proposals for U.S. Participating Investigator (USPI) investigations on a

foreign space mission that address the Earth Science Research Program objectives
listed in the NASA Science Plan. This solicitation is for Earth science investigations that
address the science questions listed in the NASA Science Plan and that contribute and
facilitate access to foreign space agencies’ assets.
2. Programmatic Considerations
2.1 Type of Investigation
A proposed investigation as a USPI on a foreign space mission may be as a Co-
Investigator (Co-I) for an instrument, experiment, or technology demonstration that is being
built and flown by a sponsor agency other than NASA. The Co-I role can include, but is not
limited to, instrument design, modeling, and simulation of the instrument’s operation and
measurement performance; calibration of the instrument; and/or development of innovative
data analysis techniques. A USPI may also serve as a member of a foreign space
mission science or engineering team and participate in science team activities such as
mission planning, mission operations, data processing, data analysis, and data
archiving.
No matter what the nature of the USPI role, an investigation proposed under this category
must be for a science or technology investigation that clearly and demonstrably enhances
the scientific output of the mission and benefits the U.S. scientific community. The
investigation must include a meaningful contribution to the development of products,
including, but not limited to, algorithm development and/or testing, calibration/validation,
and/or requirements definition (especially as may be carried out in Observing System
Simulation Experiments). If the performance period of the task would include the launch of
the mission, then the task should demonstrate a contribution to the production of data

A.26-1
products from the mission that will be made widely available to the U.S. Earth Science
research community. All aspects of the investigation must be within the proposed cost.
Investigations requiring the provision of flight hardware are not solicited through this USPI
solicitation. Investigations requiring in-field calibration/validation resources are not solicited
through this solicitation. However, the utilization of existing networks to support
calibration/validation activities for temporary deployment is acceptable, as long as their cost
is not a major component of the overall proposal.
Involvement in the mission during its development phase is preferred. Missions to
launch during or after 2024 are encouraged, in order to maximize work done during a
mission’s development phase.
Investigations focused principally on analysis and interpretation of the data products
produced by this effort or analysis of data from a foreign mission already on orbit should
be proposed separately through the ROSES call in response to an appropriate element,
e.g., Land-cover and Land-use change (Program element A.2), Ocean Biology and
Biogeochemistry (Program element A.3), Carbon Cycle science (Program element A.5),
Carbon Monitoring System (Program element A.6), Biodiversity (Program element A.7),
Physical Oceanography (Program element A.8), Cryospheric Science (Program element
A.15), Terrestrial Hydrology (Program element A.20), and Earth Surface and Interior
(Program element A.23).
This program element solicits new individual investigations only (potentially with some
Co-Investigator or Collaborator support). Large team investigations would be
considered nonresponsive to this call. Proposals to extend or directly supplement
existing investigations already funded for approved space flight missions or other Earth
Science Division research programs are not appropriate for this program element.
Investigators who are members of the science teams of ongoing missions and who
propose to use data from those missions must clearly demonstrate that the proposed
research is distinct from their existing efforts. This discussion should be included in
the separately uploaded "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized” document (see
Section 2.4).
2.2 Duration of Award
Awards will be for a maximum of five years. Following the successful completion of a
USPI investigation, PIs wishing to continue the production of data products and
associated calibration/validation activities of an on-orbit foreign mission that benefit the
U.S. Earth science community are encouraged to discuss their plans and needs with the
appropriate Earth science Program Manager.
2.3 Technical Requirements and Constraints
In addition to the requirements given in ROSES, all proposed investigations must also
demonstrate:
• their formal relationship with the sponsoring agency’s mission (e.g., selected
participant, invited participant, or proposed participant). This information can be
included in the Scientific/Technical/Management section of the proposal;
however, this information must be written in a way that does not identify the team
members. Also provide detailed information to validate the relationship(s) in the

A.26-2
 separately uploaded "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
(see Section 2.4);
• the status of the mission within the sponsoring agency (i.e., Pre-Phase A, Phase
A, Phase B, etc.), including the level of commitment that the sponsoring agency
has made to complete development;
• a description of the type and the characteristics of the data from this
investigation, as well as any ancillary science data that will be archived as part of
this investigation and a clear statement of the data policy for the mission that
documents the process and schedule by which the data will be made available to
the U.S. Earth science community; and
• a detailed explanation of how the U.S. Earth science community benefits from
this participation.
2.4 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members
on the review panel, but the reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal
teams during the scientific evaluation of the proposal. The overarching objective of dual-
anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit of a
proposal.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so p roposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines
31T

for Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page
for this program element that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual- 31T

anonymous peer review . 3 1T

The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as t he NSPIRES
31T 31T

"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
Proposal summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal PDF and 2)
proposers must upload a separate " Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized "
31T 31T 31T 31T

document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational) identifying information.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their merit, without taking
into account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after the
evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the "Expertise
and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The panel will assess the qualifications
of the team in order to allow the reviewers to assess the team capabilities required to
execute a given proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.

A.26-3
Page limits 15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of 0T 0T

facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in

an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.

A.26-4
2.5 Proposal Evaluation Factors
Proposers are reminded that the evaluation criteria for this solicitation are given in the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation Section V (a) and the Guidebook for Proposers. In
addition to the standard factors, the evaluation criterion "intrinsic merit" specifically
includes the benefits to the U.S. Earth science community from this investigation, as
noted in Section 2.3.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for
first year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Notice of Intent
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance to NASA
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
~ $750K
~5-6
5 years (see section 2.2)
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
27T 27T 27T 27T
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
27T 27T 27T 27T
6 months after proposal due date
15 pp. One additional page is allotted for the
Proposal Summary and two additional pages for
the Data Management Plan. See also Table 1 of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See A.1 The Earth Science Research Overview
and Section IV and Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4 of
27T 27T
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
27T 27T
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
27T 27T
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
27T 27T
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
27T 27T
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
27T 27T
NNH22ZDA001N-ESUSPI
A.26-5
Point of contact concerning this
program
Richard S. Eckman
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-358-2567
Email: Richard.S.Eckman@nasa.gov
27T 27T
A.26-6
A.27 MAKING EARTH SYSTEM DATA RECORDS FOR USE IN RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTS
U U

1. U Scope of Program
As articulated in NASA’s science plan (Science 2020-2024) , NASA Earth Science
31TU U31T

explores our rapidly changing world, where natural and human factors interact, following
an interdisciplinary, Earth systems approach that examines the interplay among the
atmospheric, ocean, land, and ice systems. Using the recommendations of the 2017
NASA Earth Science Decadal Survey, Thriving on Our Changing Planet a Decadal
Strategy for Earth Observation from Space, as a compass, NASA Earth Science is
developing the observing systems that will answer the most important science and
application questions of the next decade. Sustained, simultaneous observations of
many geophysical parameters are needed to understand the complexity of the global
Earth system. The quantitative determination of global trends in the Earth’s atmosphere,
ocean, cryosphere, biosphere, and land surface and interior depends significantly on
the availability of multi-instrument/multiplatform data sets, which extend to time periods
of decades. The ability to enhance Earth system component models and advance
predictive capabilities relies on dynamically consistent global observational data sets.
The overall objective of Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research
Environments (MEaSUREs) program element is to select projects providing Earth
science higher level data products and services driven by NASA’s Earth science goals.
MEaSUREs may include infusion or deployment of applicable science tools that
contribute to data product quality improvement, consistency, merging or fusion, or
understanding. An Earth System Data Record (ESDR) is defined as a unified and
coherent set of observations of a given parameter of the Earth system, which is
optimized to meet specific requirements in addressing science questions. These data
records are critical to understanding Earth System processes; are critical to assessing
variability, long-term trends, and change in the Earth System; and provide input and
validation means to modeling efforts. Emphasis is placed into linking together multiple
satellites into a constellation, developing the means of utilizing a multitude of data
sources to form coherent time series, and facilitating the use of extensive data in the
development of comprehensive Earth system models.
This ROSES element provides an opportunity for the research community to participate
in the development and generation of data products that complement and augment the
NASA produced and distributed Earth science data products available to the research
community and other stakeholders. Proposals responsive to this call MUST utilize at
least one satellite data set, preferably a NASA sponsored data set.
NASA's Earth Science Data Systems (ESDS) program oversees the life cycle of
31T 31T

NASA’s Earth science data - from acquisition through processing and distribution. The
primary goal of ESDS is to maximize the scientific return from NASA's missions and
experiments for research and applied scientists, decision makers, and society at large.
ESDS data system and science products continuously evolve through a combination of
31T 31T

competitive awards and sustained and strategic investments in open data, international
and interagency partnerships, and a set of standards that ensure consistency and
interoperability. Since 1994, Earth science data have been free and open to all users for
any purpose, and since 2015, all data systems software developed through research

A.27-1
and technology awards have been made available to the public as Open-Source
Software (OSS). The MEaSUREs program expands these capabilities with
competitively selected data products meeting research community priority needs,
allowing the research community to contribute in development and production of the
data sets that will be hosted and distributed by the discipline-specific, Earth science
Distributed Active Archive Centers, or DAACs. The DAACs, with designated
responsibilities for production, archiving, and distribution of Earth science data products,
serve a large and diverse user community (as indicated by EOSDIS performance
31T

metrics ) by providing capabilities to search and access science data products and
31T

specialized services.
Data products created from multiple instruments, and from "data fusion," remain a
challenge, and full utilization of complementary satellite data requires focused research
efforts. NASA synergistic packages intended for creation of products, e.g., operational
Level 1B - L3 products of the AIRS/AMSU instrument suite on the EOS Aqua
spacecraft, provide a guide for further innovative data products to be introduced. Here
"data fusion" could be low level fusion, the combining of several sources of raw data to
produce new raw data, or data integration, the combining of diverse data sets into a
unified data set which includes all of the data points and time steps from the input data
sets. Sophisticated understanding of the contributing instruments’ characterization and
correct application of the various contributing data must be performed for such records
to achieve the expectation that fused data is more informative than the original inputs,
while retaining their underlying accuracy. Emphasis is placed on taking advantage of
the opportunities presented by the currently operating satellites constellations, providing
the means of utilizing a multitude of data sources to form coherent time series, and
facilitating the use of consistent clusters of geophysical measurement in the
advancement of comprehensive Earth system models.
NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD) currently implements recommendations that will
address the most pressing questions about our changing planet, as identified in
the 2017 Earth Science Decadal Survey by the National Academies of Science,
31T 31T

Engineering, and Medicine.

ESD is developing the Earth System Observatory , the core of which is five satellite
31T 31T

missions providing critical data on climate change, severe weather and other natural
hazards, wildfires, and global food production. ESDRs that provide precursor products
that allow for the baselining of geophysical parameters that will be produced from these
satellites would be valuable and will synergistically contribute to NASA’s investment in
these missions.
NASA’s Earth Science Division currently operates an unprecedented number of
missions, most of which are past their prime phase and many have operated longer
than a decade and some for more than two decades. Data product developers have
matured mission instrument products through refinement of instrument
calibration/validation and algorithms. Accordingly, there is increasingly greater focus on
research and data production on measurement-based data products, beyond single
mission instrument products. In order to create these basic records, a science
measurement focus brings together expertise in multiple instrument characterization

A.27-2
and calibration, data processing, science-based product generation and distribution,
science tools, and interactive relationships with the broader science community.
Projects selected through this program element will work to afford a solution for
utilization of NASA assets and capabilities by:
- providing or adding to mature data records needed for NASA Earth System
research, and potentially product science tools and services capabilities;
- applying ESD principles regarding community involvement, product life cycle
planning, and standards and interfaces for interoperability and exchange of data
and information;
supporting ongoing data system evolution efforts through participation in one or more
Earth Science Data System Working Groups, which include Cloud Analytics Reference
Architecture, Community Systems Integration, Data Product Developer's Guide and
Dataset Interoperability.
2. Types of Proposals
This MEaSUREs call continues the 2017 MEaSUREs Program focus on these particular
Earth science research measurement needs, and the creation of Earth System Data
Records (ESDRs), including Climate Data Records (CDRs).
Selected MEaSUREs projects will be focused on product generation, availability, and
utility. Maturity of algorithm and calibration/validation activity research is a prerequisite
for selection as a MEaSUREs project to embark on large-scale data production.
In addition, proposals may be submitted by previously selected MEaSUREs (2012 or
2017) projects to continue the production of previously developed and delivered data to
NASA. This type of proposal must document that the previously selected project has
fully met its development and delivery milestones to NASA DAACs and will strictly
continue production and delivery of products, assuming the input data sets are still
acquired. It is expected that these projects will require significantly lower funding
resources. A number of "continuation" projects may be selected. The balance of the
“continuation” proposals and new ESDR proposals will be determined based on the
number and quality of the proposals received.
3. Programmatic Information
The majority of awards will commence with Fiscal Year 2023 funds.
3.1 Proposal Submission and Evaluation
In addition to the evaluation criteria given in NASA Guidebook for Proposers, these
MEaSUREs proposals will be evaluated on their satisfactorily addressing the following
requirements:
• Identify the Earth Science research needs, potential utility and expected scientific
impact for the ESDR/CDR. Proposers should cite documentation of key
measurement needs found in NASA or NASA-participating (e.g., U.S. Global
Change Research Program, Group on Earth Observations (GEO) Reports) related
strategic plans, documents, roadmaps, or other materials.

A.27-3
 • Document ESDR/CDR community establishment and maturity level, citing
established calibration/validation, peer reviewed publications for algorithms, and
product quality and usage summaries.
• "Continuation" projects must document the utility and scientific impact of the
produced ESDRs/CDRs, citing peer reviewed publications and a quantitative
assessment of the data utilization by the research community and other
stakeholders.
• Identify all challenges in the development and production of the proposed
ESDR/CDR and describe the effort required. Characterize uncertainties and
quantify errors associated with the proposed ESDRs.
• Document ESDR/CDR community establishment and maturity level, citing
established calibration/validation, peer reviewed publications for algorithms, and
product quality and usage summaries.
• Proposals must address the delivery of developed code to NASA. In particular,
proposers must address the feasibility of transitioning their proposed data
production, via delivering the developed code and auxiliary information, to a NASA
processing system, other institution and other investigators.
• The period of award for these projects is up to five years. Proposal plans and
deliverables described must state the length of effort and provide milestones and
deliverables within the timeline. Proposals for five-year awards must be fully
justified.
3.2 Other Requirements
All MEaSUREs projects will meet the following requirements:
• Maintain a public WWW-compliant presence.
• Data and information shall be publicly available. A tailored, alternate Data Rights
section will be applied to resultant Cooperative Agreements (CA), under which
scientific data and scientific software (software used for processing raw Earth
Observation remote sensing instrument data into scientific data and products) will be
exchanged without restriction as to its disclosure, use, or duplication.
• Project management will seek community scrutiny and review of product quality and
acceptability.
In addition, proposers selected by the MEaSUREs Program will be asked to have
representation on one or more Earth Science Data System Working Groups (DSWGs).
MEaSUREs proposals must include to which DSWG(s) they wish to have
representation. Proposers should budget between one tenth (0.1) and a quarter time
(0.25) FTE, depending on the project, and adequate travel budget for these activities
(see https://earthdata.nasa.gov/collaborate/esdswg for additional information).
31T 31T

3.3 Award Type and Funding

The funding vehicle for any extramural project selected through this program
element will be a Cooperative Agreement (CA). Proposers should be aware of the
differences between a CA and other vehicles, such as grants and contracts. See the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation and NASA’s Guidebook for Proposers for further
information on different award types. Proposals submitted to this program element

A.27-4
from government labs will be supported via inter- or intra-agency transfer of funds,
depending on the proposing organization. However, no matter what the funding
mechanism, all awards will be managed like cooperative agreements in that they will
be subject to statements of collaboration like those linked to CAs and all awardees
will be required to work collaboratively with NASA’s Earth Science Data Systems
(ESDS) Program. Under a CA implementation NASA ESD shall be responsible to
provide the selected projects, when applicable, participation in pertinent science
community meetings and conferences, identification of project metrics to aid projects
in the monitoring of relevant data system and information development, identification
(by the HQ manager) of Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) where the final
versions of products are to be archived and from which they are to be distributed to
the user community, and documentation on standards and interfaces pertaining to
products (data, algorithms and software) generated by the MEaSUREs projects.
The continuation of all awards, including those at government labs, will be contingent on
annual reports describing progress in both research and collaboration, including
interactions with ESDS.
3.4 Relationship to Other NASA Program Elements
MEaSUREs is envisioned to complement and build upon the results of other NASA
funded activities, in particular those of the competitively selected mission and
measurement science teams, which are often focused on algorithm development or
refinement.
MEaSUREs does not solicit proposals for systems and information technology.
Information technology deployment of data and information systems and services and
tools that enhance NASA’s data and information systems infrastructure, increase the
interconnection of services for research, and enable freer movement of data and
information within the distributed system of users and providers should consider
applying to the Advancing Collaborative Connections for Earth System Science
(ACCESS) Program when it is next solicited.
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget ~ $12M/year
for new awards
Number of new awards pending ~ 20
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 5 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
31T 31T 31T 31T

propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
31T 31T 31T 31T

Planning date for start of new
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science-Technical-Management
section of proposal
Relevance
6 months after proposal due date
20 pp; see also see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers.
This program is relevant to the Earth science

A.27-5

General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
preparation and submission of
proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
strategic goals and subgoals in NASA’s
Strategic Plan. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See A.1 Earth Science Research Overview and
Section IV and Table 1 of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4
31T 31T
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
31T 31T
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
31T 31T
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
31T 31T
9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
31T 31T
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
31T 31T
NNH22ZDA001N-MEASURES
Lucia Tsaoussi
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-4471
Email: lucia.s.tsaoussi@nasa.gov
31T 31T
A.27-6
A.28 INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH IN EARTH SCIENCE
NOTICE: Amended November 14, 2022. This amendment delays the
proposal due date for this program element due to Hurricane Nicole.
Proposals are now due November 23, 2022.
This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan Pilot
Program, see Section 1.3. This Inclusion Plan will not be part of the
adjectival ratings nor selection recommendations for this opportunity.
Proposals that include developing new datasets must include a data
management plan, see Section 2.
1. Scope of the Program
This opportunity is for new and successor interdisciplinary research investigations within
NASA’s Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Science (IDS) program. Proposed research
investigations will meet the following criteria: a) offer a fundamental advance to our
understanding of the Earth system; b) be based on remote sensing data, especially
satellite observations, but including suborbital sensors as appropriate; c) go beyond
correlation of data sets and seek to understand the underlying causality of change
through determination of the specific physical, chemical, and/or biological processes
involved; d) be truly interdisciplinary in scope by involving traditionally disparate
disciplines of the Earth sciences; and e) address at least one of these specific themes:
• Analyzing the Nitrogen Cycle from Space: Integrating Atmospheric Observations
and Biogeochemical Models ;
• Ocean-Atmosphere Gas Exchange and Particle Deposition;
• Wildfire Impacts on Ecosystems and Communities ;
• Environmental and Climate Justice Using Earth Observations;
• Processes Across the Land-Ocean Continuum;
• Ocean Worlds: Research at the Interface;
• Earth-Moon Connections in a Changing Climate.
The results of these investigations will improve our capability for both prognostic
predictions and retrospective simulations of the Earth system. They will also advance
our understanding of the vulnerabilities in human and biogeophysical systems and their
relationships to climate extremes, thresholds, and tipping points. Meeting these goals
requires approaches that integrate the traditional disciplines of the Earth sciences, as
well as innovative and complementary use of models and data.
1.1 Context and History
Since its inception more than a decade ago, NASA's IDS program has advanced the
goal of understanding the Earth system by promoting interdisciplinary research and
exploiting the vast wealth of data from NASA satellite and airborne sensors. The
program’s focus has generally aligned with the goals of the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (http://globalchange.gov/). Substantial contributions have also been
made to Earth system model development, training the next generation of
interdisciplinary scientists, and developing the necessary infrastructure to take full
advantage of NASA satellite data.

A.28-1
The specific topics of the program have varied through time and this program element
represents the development of new elements and the continuation of others. In its most
recent prior incarnation IDS (ROSES 2019) these topics were:
• Volcanoes in the Earth System;
• Interactions Between Sea Ice and the Atmosphere;
• Polar Ocean/Biology/Biogeochemical Coupling;
• The Life Cycle of Snow;
• Impacts of urbanization on local and regional hydrometeorology;
• Space Archaeology: Using the Past to Inform the Present and Future;
• Exploring the Microbial Biodiversity of the Atmosphere.
One may see information about awards from IDS-2019 in this PDF under "Selections"
on the NSPIRES pages for IDS 2019.
1.2 Potential for Acquisition of Additional Field Data as Part of IDS Investigations
Proposals are expected to utilize existing remote sensing and in-situ datasets. While
NASA expects IDS investigations typically to be accomplished using publicly available
data, NASA also recognizes that some additional data collection through small scale
field work may add significantly to the proposed work. Thus, unless otherwise noted in
the specific subelement, proposals may include some small-scale field work. The cost
for such field work should not exceed 20% of the total project budget. Consistent with
NASA Earth Science data policy, all data collected must be made freely and publicly
available with no period of exclusive use beyond calibration and validation.
Proposals requiring data from airborne sensors must detail in their budget all costs for
acquiring the new data sets, including costs for aircraft hours, deployment costs,
mission peculiar costs, data processing costs, and other costs associated with
deploying the sensors and aircraft (this includes NASA and non-NASA sensors and
platforms). In addition, for any proposed activities requiring NASA aircraft or NASA
facility sensors, proposers should submit a Placeholder Flight Request to the Airborne
Science Flight Request system at https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/. If the instrument or
aircraft are not NASA facilities, proposers must take responsibility for making all
arrangements to secure the availability of the needed sensors and aircraft and explain
these plans in the proposal.
1.3 Inclusion Plan
An Inclusion Plan, not to exceed two pages and immediately following the Data
Management Plan, is required in all proposals. Inclusion is a core NASA value, and
diversity and inclusion are prioritized in Strategy 4.1 from A Vision for Scientific
Excellence (formerly known as the Science Plan). NASA defines diversity broadly as
"The entire universe of differences and similarities" and inclusion as "the full
participation, belonging, and contribution of organizations and individuals". SMD
believes in the importance of diverse and inclusive teams to tackle strategic problems
and maximize scientific return, and seeks to promote such opportunities and benefits
across the solid-Earth science community. To this end, proposers are to use the 2-page
inclusion plan to:
● identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for

A.28-2
 those carrying out the proposed investigation;
● address ways in which the investigation team will work against these barriers to
create and sustain such an environment, such as fostering communication and
openness amongst the team, involving under-represented groups in proposal
activities, etc.;
● discuss contributions the proposed investigation will make to the training and
development of a diverse and inclusive scientific workforce, and clearly define
roles and responsibilities for all team members towards pursuing those goals;
● consider involvement of organizations and institutions that support and serve
under-represented groups including, but not limited to, Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and Other
Minority Universities. A resource that some proposers may find useful in this
regard is the NASA MSI Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
● identify and address other topics related to diversity, equity, accessibility, and
inclusion that the proposing team has identified and seeks to resolve.
All efforts identified under the Inclusion Plan should have clearly stated goals, activities
to achieve those goals, and metrics for measuring progress during the award period. If
additional funding is needed to implement the plan, it should be included and justified in
the budget. Feedback will be provided to the proposers as part of the panel review
summaries, but will not contribute to the adjectival ratings or selection
recommendations. Note that even though the assessment of the inclusion plan will not
be part of the adjectival grade for the proposal and will not inform the selection of
proposals, funding will be released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory
inclusion plan is approved by the NASA Program Manager of his program element. If
additional funding is needed to implement the inclusion plan, it should be stated and
included and justified in the budget. SMD plans to invite comments regarding this pilot
program from reviewers and proposers after the review is completed. SMD plans to
invite comments regarding this pilot program from reviewers and proposers after the
review is completed.
2. Interdisciplinary Research Themes, Proposal Details, and Review information
Specific scientific topics and questions are identified as separate subelements within
any given year’s program element. These topics and questions constitute the complete
set of scientific research topics solicited by the IDS program, and no priority should be
construed from their relative order. Proposals submitted in response to this element
MUST address at least one of these subelements, and proposals MUST identify clearly
which subelement or subelements are addressed. Proposed research investigations
must also meet all of the following criteria, and each of these should be specifically
addressed in the proposal:
• offer a fundamental advance to our understanding of the Earth system;
• be based on remote sensing data, especially satellite observations, but including
suborbital sensors as appropriate;
• go beyond correlation of data sets and seek to understand the underlying
causality of change through determination of the specific physical, chemical,
and/or biological processes involved;

A.28-3
 • be truly interdisciplinary in scope by involving traditionally disparate disciplines of
the Earth sciences; and
• address at least one of the specific subelements listed in the program element.
Proposals that include developing new datasets must include a data management plan,
see Section 1.1 of A.1 The Earth Science Research Overview.
NASA is leading the implementation of Open Source Science (OSS) and proposers
should incorporate the principles of OSS to the maximum extent possible in developing
their proposals. Details on this may be found at https://science.nasa.gov/open-science-
overview.
Proposals should advance our knowledge of interdisciplinary Earth System Science and
advance the capability of models in a way that will contribute to the analysis of data
from currently-operating and future NASA Earth Science satellites, including those that
will constitute the forthcoming Earth System Observatory
https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/earth-system-observatory.
NASA expects to have separate peer review panels for each subelement, and
proposals will be assigned to one or more panels based on the proposer’s identification
of the appropriate subelement, as well as NASA’s assessment of proposal content.
While NASA expects to select proposals in each of the subelements, NASA reserves
the right to select proposals in none, some, or all of these depending on the nature and
distribution of proposals received and the outcome of the peer review process.
In this program element, there are two classes of elements – Subelements 1-5 are
"large," each with total funding of ~$2M/year contemplated, while Subelements 6-7 are
"small," each with total funding of ~$750K/year contemplated.
Note that for these subelements, numerous potential topics are included. Given the
number of such topics and the funding limitations, no commitment is made to fund
proposals related to each of the subtopics listed. Balance among these potential topics
will be considered as part of the programmatic considerations being made during the
selection process.
2.1 Subelement 1: Analyzing the Nitrogen Cycle from Space: Integrating Atmospheric
Observations and Biogeochemical Models
Over the past century, human activities such as fossil fuel combustion, and chemical
fertilizer production/application have dramatically impacted the natural nitrogen (N)
cycle. Reactive nitrogen (Nr) emitted to the atmosphere by human activities is eventually
returned to the Earth’s surface though either wet or dry deposition. Excessive N
deposition can negatively impact terrestrial, estuarine and coastal ecosystems.
Ammonia (NH3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are important to atmospheric chemistry and
are primary components of atmospheric aerosols. In addition, ammonium (NH 4+) and
nitrate (NO3-) are often the nutrients limiting the growth of many ecosystems and can
result in eutrophication, toxic algal blooms, hypoxic, or anoxic conditions in estuarine
and coastal aquatic environments if found in excess. The methods of estimating
atmospheric Nr emissions and subsequent deposition include a combination of ground-
based monitoring, atmospheric chemical transport monitoring, and constraints from
satellite atmospheric composition column observations. Modeling approaches have also

A.28-4
been useful to determine N sources, sinks, and local and global distribution, though
uncertainties persist regarding sources and sinks in terrestrial and aquatic
environments.
The OMI and TROPOMI instruments have provided multiple years of high quality NO 2
observations from space, helping to observe large point sources of NO2 emissions and
constrain the NOx budget. The recent advancements in NH 3 retrievals from the Cross-
track Infrared Sounder (CrIS), Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS), and Infrared
Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI) infrared sounder satellite instruments can
be used to help constrain NH3 emissions from various sources. Using satellite
observations to provide top-down constraints on NO2 and NH3 emissions (both
anthropogenic and natural) should help improve our understanding of the reactive N
and reduce model uncertainties. With satellite N r observations, atmospheric and
ecological communities have a unique new opportunity to examine N budgets and
fluxes as well as the source/receptor impacts on various terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems.
We solicit studies that can advance our understanding of:
• The influence of land surface processes, land cover and land use, or marine
outgassing of Nr on the atmosphere;
• Detection and understanding of hot spots on the land surface for emissions of Nr
at local, regional and global scales;
• Improved understanding of the impacts of agricultural, industrial, and forest
management activities on the nitrogen cycle;
• The movement of reactive nitrogen in the atmosphere and deposition to
ecosystems at regional to global scales.
• Improved biogeochemical modeling of impacts of N r deposition on terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems using atmospheric satellite observations of N r; and
• Improved understanding of the impact of atmospheric Nr deposition on
ecosystem services and subsequent impacts on society.
Note that the number of proposals selected for the above topics may be zero, one, or
more than one. The distribution of proposals selected will depend on the number and
quality of proposals received in each of these topics. In addition, ecosystem services
are defined as one or more of the direct or indirect benefits that humans derive from
ecosystems, e.g., food, fiber, and water, regulating services such as
flood/erosion/disease, cultural services such as spiritual, recreational and cultural
benefits, and life support services such as nutrient cycling and maintenance of air
quality.
In addressing this subelement, proposals shall:
• Make significant use of space based NO2 and NH3 products.
• Be interdisciplinary in scope and specifically address atmosphere-ecosystem
connections; proposals that address only a single component of the Earth
System will be considered non-responsive.
• Include both biological/ecological (terrestrial, aquatic and/or hydrological) and
atmospheric scientist investigators.

A.28-5
 • Go beyond correlation of datasets and, wherever possible, gain new insight into
the physical processes and underlying causality; and
• Address weaknesses in existing atmospheric and ecosystem models.
2.2 Subelement 2: Ocean-Atmosphere Gas Exchange and Particle Deposition
The ocean encompasses over 70% of the Earth’s surface, and the exchange of gases
across the air-sea interface is fundamental to the processes that influence weather and
regulate climate. While a substantial amount of research has been focused on air-sea
gas exchange and its environmental controls, there remain significant knowledge gaps
pertaining to the flux of climate-relevant gases between the ocean and atmosphere that
must be addressed to better predict future climate scenarios. Physical oceanographic
conditions are critical drivers and regulators of air-sea gas exchange, which, in turn, has
significant impacts on ocean carbon biogeochemistry and ocean ecosystem health.
The magnitude of air-sea gas exchange varies on a wide range of temporal scales,
including seasonal and multi-decadal variations. Large-scale oscillations, such as the El
Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), impact
the lower atmosphere and surface ocean exchange across scales that are largely not
well understood. Improving the understanding of gas exchange processes across the
air-sea interface, as well as the response of surface ocean biology and biogeochemistry
to changes in atmospheric forcing, has direct impacts on our capacity to manage
ecosystems, and to develop and support a sustainable blue economy. Further
constraining surface physical processes and air-sea fluxes will advance our
understanding and predictive capabilities of oceanic biogeochemical processes and of
the ocean/atmosphere state, enabling reduced uncertainty in our predictions of gas
exchange and climate variability. Satellite observations of atmospheric greenhouse
gases (GHGs; i.e., carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), trace gases (volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including halogenated VOCs); sea‐surface temperature,
vector winds, ocean salinity, sea ice age and extent, biogeochemistry, and biology are
all critical to understanding and monitoring of ocean/atmosphere gas fluxes,
complementing the often sparse in-situ measurements and enabling synoptic atlases
and other synthetic data products to be developed. Coupled ocean-atmosphere models
are also instrumental for quantifying air-sea gas exchange and advancing the
understanding of atmospheric nutrient deposition in the oceans and the corresponding
ecosystem impacts.
This subelement aligns with the goals of the US SOLAS Science Plan and contributes
to advancing SOLAS science within the U.S. research community. It also takes into
consideration the recommendations of the NASEM Report “A Research Strategy for
Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration,” and contributes toward the goals
of the Ocean Policy Committee. The subelement specifically solicits research that would
further advance our understanding in the following areas: (1) Greenhouse gases and
reactive trace gases emitted by the ocean (e.g., surface ocean exchange processes,
feedback mechanisms, etc.) and (2) Atmospheric deposition of particles and ocean
biogeochemistry.
2.2.1 Trace gas exchange to/from the ocean
Atmospheric GHG and reactive trace gas fluxes and concentrations are mainly

A.28-6
regulated by physical and biogeochemical processes in the upper ocean. This research
topic seeks to address topics such as better constraining surface ocean exchange
processes and sources of natural variability in air-sea gas exchange, resolving temporal
variability in regional air-sea fluxes, and identifying environmental feedbacks on varying
timescales associated with physical and biological responses. In addition to GHGs,
many VOCs that influence regional atmospheric chemistry and global climate are
emitted from the ocean and their source is often associated with phytoplankton,
macroalgae, and/or chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM). Examples of
reactive VOCs emitted from the ocean include: dimethyl sulfide (CH 3SCH3),
acetaldehyde (CH3CHO), acetone (CH3COCH3), bromoform (CHBr3), dibromomethane
(CH2Br2), dibromochloromethane (CHClBr2), and bromodichloromethane (CHBrCl2).
2.2.2 Atmospheric deposition of particles and ocean biogeochemistry
Dust events, volcanic eruptions and biomass burning can inject in the atmosphere
nutrient-containing particles that subsequently precipitate into the marine environment,
potentially altering ocean primary production and carbon uptake. This research topic
seeks to further understand processes involved in atmospheric deposition and its
impacts on ocean biology and biogeochemistry, addressing issues such as better
understanding deposition processes as they pertain to potential future climate-induced
changes and feedbacks.
2.3 Subelement 3: Wildfire Impacts on Ecosystems and Communities
Wildfire is a complex process that spans multiple components of the Earth System.
Increasing trends in the frequency and intensity of wildfires are occurring, particularly
with notable severe fire seasons in the western United States and elsewhere across the
globe in recent years. These increases in uncharacteristically large and severe wildfires
have profound effects on ecosystems and thus on the human communities both
adjacent to and far removed from the burned area. Ecosystem impacts include
alteration of biogeochemical cycles, impacts on vegetation community composition,
structure, and function as well as alteration of the hydrological cycle, among others.
Impacts on human communities such as degraded water and air quality as well as
increased risks of landslides and flooding events, may ultimately have severe negative
impacts on human health and livelihoods. Increases in the frequency, size, and severity
of wildfires is expected to continue under climate change. Understanding the changing
characteristics of these wildfires and associated impacts on ecosystem
biogeochemistry, hydrology, vegetation community composition and structure, wildlife,
atmospheric feedbacks, and human communities is a critical challenge in Earth system
science.
Over the last decade significant advances have been made in the remote sensing and
modelling of wildfire and associated impacts. Earth Observation data and models are
routinely used to assess the pre-, active, and post-fire environments, for example, to
detect, track, and predict wildfire spread, map burned areas and fire severity, and
characterize smoke transport and impacts on air quality. However, despite these
advances, there are still significant gaps in fire related observations and modelling. Data
from many new NASA satellites (e.g., ECOSTRESS, GEDI, ICESat-2, etc.), commercial
satellites, suborbital, aircraft (e.g., AVIRIS/AVIRIS-ng, HyTES, LVIS), and ground-based

A.28-7
sensors are now available that could start to fill important observational gaps in the pre-,
active, and post-fire environments, with advancements continuing through the
development and execution of NASA’s Earth System Observatory missions (e.g.,
Surface Biology and Geology; Atmosphere Observing System;
https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/earth-system-observatory).
NASA seeks proposals for interdisciplinary studies of wildfire impacts on terrestrial
ecosystems, feedbacks to the atmosphere and consequences to human communities.
It is mandatory that proposals satisfy the requirements of IDS investigations by
proposing a fundamental scientific advance, remote-sensing based, process-focused,
and truly interdisciplinary research. Potential topics include (note that the selection of
proposals may include none, one, or more than one for each of the indicated topics,
with the distribution of proposals selected dependent on the distribution and quality of
proposals received in these areas):
• Integrated observational and modeling studies of wildfire processes including
detailed treatment of land, vegetation, atmospheric and radiative effects, to
advance our understanding of extreme fire impacts on ecosystems,
biogeochemical cycles, atmospheric composition, water quality, and air quality.
• Enhanced use of existing and/or new observations to provide the key inputs for
improving models of fire spread, smoke transport, and greenhouse gas
emissions.
• Improved understanding of the impacts of climate change on wildfire properties
(e.g., frequency, intensity, severity) and associated impacts on ecosystems and
human communities.
• Improved understanding of the role that wildfire behavior plays in the post-fire
environment including long-term recovery of vegetation composition and
structure and ecosystem function over multidecadal time spans.
• Integrated remote sensing and modeling to predict post-fire erosion including
landslide risk and hazard and related impacts to water quality.
2.4 Subelement 4: Environmental and Climate Justice using Earth Observations
The NASA Earth Science Division (ESD) recognizes that the world’s poorest and
marginalized communities are disproportionately influenced by environmental
exposures and vulnerabilities. This is also notably the case for impacts related to
climate change, referred to as climate justice. NASA ESD’s commitment to
environmental justice (EJ) and climate justice (CJ) is aligned with Executive Orders
13985 and 14008 and is based on the understanding that the use of NASA data,
products, and personnel can and should inform the just treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people – regardless of race, color, national origin, income, or ability –
with respect to development, implementation, and evaluation of programs, practices,
and activities that affect human health and the environment.
We extend the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC)
definition for EJ communities (WHEJAC Interim Final Recommendations, May 13, 2021,
page 79) to include CJ. In this subelement, we use EJ and CJ communities to mean
geographic locations around the globe with significant representation of minoritized
populations, low-income persons, and/or indigenous persons or members of Tribal

A.28-8
nations, where such individuals experience, or are at risk of experiencing, more adverse
human health, environmental, and/or climate change impacts.
NASA ESD not only aims to diversify Earth science research and applications
communities with representation from all backgrounds but also to support EJ and CJ
communities by expanding awareness, accessibility, and use of Earth data. ESD
activities that focus on EJ/CJ merge NASA’s Earth observations with socioeconomic
data and, when combined with external social science data and expertise, can help
better serve the needs of EJ and CJ communities.
NASA Earth Science can play an important role in addressing questions at the
intersection of Earth observations and EJ/CJ. This subelement supports opportunities
for the research and applications communities to work with colleagues in social science
disciplines to address complex and challenging problems that are relevant to EJ
communities worldwide.
In this subelement, proposed investigator teams must include an end-user who is part of
or who works directly with underserved communities, as a funded co-investigator on the
project.
NASA encourages proposals that address high priority EJ/CJ needs (as defined above)
through the following topics:
• Air pollution impacts on human health
• Urbanization impacts on heat islands effects and/or changes in precipitation
• Land cover/use change impacts on food, energy, and/or water
• Impacts of upstream activities on coastal communities
• Exposure and vulnerability to geohazards (e.g., infrastructure and flooding,
landslides, etc.)
All proposals must directly address the interfaces between the Earth processes of
interest and human factors (e.g., decisions, cultures, policies, geographic disparities,
etc.). Proposals must use remotely sensed data integrated with socio-economic data as
a critical component of the proposal. Preference will be given to proposals that use
satellite-based remote sensing; however, other NASA data products from airborne
campaigns, ground-based stations, or model output may be used for the proposed
research
2.5 Subelement 5: Processes Across the Land-Ocean Continuum
This sub-element solicits proposals to study processes across the land-ocean interface
to better understand how the ecosystems are interconnected and how changes in one
may cascade into or impact the other. Traditionally, fluxes of material from land to inland
water bodies (e.g., rivers, freshwater wetlands) and coasts (coastal marshlands,
mangrove forests) have been partitioned into, and studied as, its individual components
(e.g., agriculture, natural grassland, urban, forest, inland water and coastal ocean),
which precludes observing this continuum as a holistic entity. Understanding the
interconnection between ecosystems requires an integrated and interdisciplinary
approach, considering hydrologic and nutrients cycles across land, freshwater, and
marine environments. This subelement is focused on the impacts of fast (yearly scale)
natural and human-induced processes. Proposals on slow processes (decadal scale),

A.28-9
such as sea-level rise impact in the coastal zone, are beyond the scope of this
subelement (proposers interested in this time scale may may want to examine Element
A.52, Earth System Science for Building Coastal Reslience).
Some examples of land-cover and land-use change and its impacts on aquatic
ecosystem components are provided below; these topics require an interdisciplinary
approach to advance our understanding of the impacts by natural processes and
human-induced alterations across the land-ocean continuum, both now and in the
future. Note that the selection of proposals may include none, one, or more than one
for each of the indicated topics, with the distribution of proposals selected dependent on
the distribution and quality of proposals received in these areas):
Agricultural expansion and intensification: Tillage of the land and deforestation for
agricultural expansion alter infiltration and runoff characteristics affecting other surface
hydrology variables, e.g., groundwater recharge, sediment and water yield, and
evapotranspiration. The removal of surface water and groundwater for irrigation affects
ecosystems that depend upon natural water distribution. The use of fertilizers, with
excess of nutrients or pesticides lead to contamination of inland waters, which may
further propagate to coastal marine habitats, resulting in a degradation of water quality
including eutrophication, toxic algal blooms, and hypoxic conditions. On the other hand,
climate change-induced reduction in precipitation may lead to increases in crop
irrigation, where excess runoff, affects streamflow, groundwater, and ultimately reaches
wetlands and marshlands. Extreme rainfall events cause a major increase in runoff of
sediment and nutrients impacting water quality and challenging effective water
management.
Urbanization: Removal of water from streams and groundwater systems to supply the
residential water and agricultural irrigation needs of growing cities and surrounding
areas can impact surface and groundwater reservoirs. Many urban areas are located in
the coastal zone, where extraction of freshwater can lead to increasing ground water
salinization. As vegetation is replaced by the built environment, water infiltration
decreases and runoff from impervious surfaces, such as highways, parking lots and
buildings, increases, often leading to flooding. Intensifying climate stressors affect
hydrologic changes, and more frequent extreme events (floods, droughts and fires) may
further compound the anthropogenic effects.
Wetland conversion: Urban development and agricultural land conversion in coastal
regions are often accomplished by draining wetlands. This leads to reduced
groundwater recharge and increases the risk of flooding. Also, draining wetlands, which
are among the most biologically productive ecosystems on Earth, adversely impacts
biodiversity and often has cascading effects on nearby coastal ecosystems.
Proposers to this subelement should state how their proposal advances the
interdisciplinary science of land-ocean process interactions in the context of previous
research and highlight the novel aspects of the proposed research.
Elemental cycling and transformation across the land-ocean continuum: Changes within
terrestrial ecosystems affect how elements flow from the land through inland aquatic
systems and to the coastal ocean. These changes in the movement and cycling of
elements across the land-ocean continuum have the power to impact the structure and

A.28-10
function of both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Waterways, including rivers, lakes,
and dams, serve as conduits that transport these elements. Increasing climate stressors
adds a layer of complexity when it comes to predicting how water quality and availability
are impacted by future changes in land use. The quantification of these changes is a
challenge, requiring temporally and spatially concurrent observations of, but not limited
to, the composition of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, land-use/land-cover change
(including natural and human-induced disturbance), pre- and post-disturbance patterns
of temperature and precipitation, and consequences of hazards, such as flood, drought,
and fire.
2.6 Subelement 6: Ocean Worlds: Research at the Interface
In ocean worlds, including our own Earth, important physical and biogeochemical
processes occur at interfaces; on Earth, processes occurring at interfaces between the
solid Earth, water, ice, soil, and air significantly influence and control chemical cycling,
energy flows, and the availability of resources that are necessary for life. Processes at
interfaces take place across a wide range of temporal and spatial scales. These regions
are critical for life, yet, because of the challenges that exist in capturing the wide range
of processes and drivers that occur at those interfaces, these areas remain poorly
described even on Earth. For example, there still remains a wide range of rates of
transformation, and biogeochemical and biological constituents and processes at
interfaces, including phytoplankton and microbes, that have not been adequately
characterized on Earth. In addition, models that can capture interface workings on Earth
and on ocean worlds on other planets and moons are important; however, many
challenges such as inadequate characterization of smaller scale processes. As most
ocean worlds are frozen, linking Earth’s ocean-ice interactions (for example
geochemical cycling and climate response of ice shelves) with those that likely also
operate on other ocean worlds means that exploring these physical processes on Earth
also provides context for exploring other ocean worlds.
This particular topic seeks investigations that better characterize processes that take
place at the ocean-ice interface, with an eye towards improved characterization of
interfaces through satellite remote sensing and modeling, to better understand critical
physical processes that happen at those interfaces (radiation, thermal, salinity, mixing,
etc.) and how these in turn affect biochemistry and biology, what essential parameters
govern these ocean-ice interface processes, how these dynamics change spatially and
temporally, and how biology (or biosignatures) can be linked to environmental
conditions and processes. These studies are expected to advance our understanding of
biogeochemistry and life on Earth in the face of climate change, and further the
understanding of dynamics of habitable worlds. Characterizing processes that occur at
interfaces on Earth and other ocean worlds will require a multidisciplinary framework
and an interdisciplinary approach that draws on multiple fields of expertise. Terrestrial
and extraterrestrial ocean and ice scientists are expected to work collaboratively to
measure and model spatial and temporal dynamics, determine essential parameters
that govern interface processes, and evaluate new and existing technologies to access
and study dynamics of habitable worlds.

A.28-11
Note that the selection of proposals within this subelement may include none, one, or
more than one for each of the indicated topics, with the distribution of proposals
selected dependent on the distribution and quality of proposals received in these areas.
2.7 Subelement 7: Earth-Moon Connections in a Changing Climate
Understanding and predicting Earth’s climate change and preparing for human
exploration of the Moon in Artemis are among the top priorities for NASA. While each of
those priorities is addressed by dedicated programs at NASA, an obvious physical
connection between the Earth and its moon warrants a joint look at both missions
through investigation of the effects of climate change on the Earth-Moon system. As
humanity is influencing Earth’s climate system, do our actions have far-reaching
consequences beyond our home planet?
The Earth and the Moon are directly connected through their gravitational interaction
and shared angular momentum. The magnitude of the gravitational pull varies with
distance between the two objects and the gradient in the Moon’s gravitational field
generates tides in Earth’s oceans as well as solid body tides in the solid Earth and
Moon. Bound by the conservation of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system,
Earth’s orbital changes are offset by those of the Moon. This conservation and transfer
of angular momentum between the Earth and Moon explains the observation that the
Moon is gradually moving farther away from Earth, resulting in slowing of the Earth’s
rotation rate and an increase in the length of its day.
Lesser-studied variations in the Earth-Moon system are those induced by the ongoing
and projected changes in the Earth’s climate system, including rising sea level, changes
in ocean tides impacted by local coastal processes, and redistribution of mass due to
cryospheric and hydrological changes. Per the recent science consensus of the
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), an
additional global mean sea level increase of 0.5 m towards the end of the century is
inevitable, with a likely increase of up to a meter depending on the future that humanity
chooses. With the two celestial bodies being intimately and directly linked, are there any
measurable feedbacks to the Earth-Moon systems with the changes on Earth as a
result of climate change, now or in the future?
The intent of this sub-element is to determine to what extent there is linkage between
the physics of the Earth’s ocean-climate processes and the parameters of the lunar orbit
(distance, libration magnitude, etc.) and to identify any potential feedbacks between the
lunar orbit and Earth’s ocean processes. In particular, we seek investigations answering
a two-part question about the Earth-Moon system changes and feedback responses:
1. Are there any changes to lunar orbital parameters that can be attributed to Earth’s
changing climate that occurred over the past decades? What are the magnitudes
of these changes? What are the expected changes to lunar orbital parameters
related to projected climate scenarios, as provided by the IPCC AR6? Do projected
future changes in sea level, ocean circulation, and mass redistribution produce
measurable impacts on the Earth-Moon system?
2. Do the climate-induced changes to the Earth-Moon system result in any
observable feedback loop responses that could modulate Earth’s ocean changes,
e.g., through modified tidal forcing, ocean tides, and sea level rise? What is the

A.28-12
 magnitude of those expected feedback processes? Are these effects significant
enough that they should be incorporated into current climate and ocean models,
e.g., ocean tides and sea level response?
Proposal teams are expected to be interdisciplinary with expertise to investigate
potential connections between Earth ocean climate processes and lunar orbital
mechanics. Proposers are encouraged to use a wide range of NASA data and models,
including (but not limited to) satellite altimetry (TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, 2, 3,
Sentinel-6 MF) and gravity missions (GRACE, GRACE-FO), tide gauge records, data
from Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) available on the CDDIS, APOLLO (Apache point lunar
laser), GRAIL (gravity field of the Moon; Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory), LRO
(Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) data, as well as theoretical, numerical and climate
simulations if appropriate.
As the first science collaboration between the Physical Oceanography Program of the
Earth Science Division and Planetary Science Division, this subelement is to advance
the priorities of both divisions through the investigation of coupled processes impacting
both Earth’s ocean physics and the lunar orbit, thus jointly advancing both NASA's
climate change and Artemis missions.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for new ~ $11.5M Total
awards ~$2.0M/year each for subelements 1-5;
~$0.75 M/year each for subelements 6 and 7
Number of awards anticipated ~ 4-5 each for subelements 1-5;
2-5 each for subelements 6 and 7
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of investigation No earlier than 6 months after the proposal
due date.
Page limit for the central 15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and
Science/Technical/Management the Guidebook for Proposers
section of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
proposals Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of
ROSES-2022.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, the NASA
preparation and submission of Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) of
proposals the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.

A.28-13
 Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Main point of contact concerning this
program. See POCs for specific
subelements below.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-IDS
Kathy Hibbard
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0682
Email: Kathleen.A.Hibbard@nasa.gov

General questions about the IDS Program should be directed to the point of contact above.
Questions about specific subelements should be directed to those listed below, all of whom
share the same mailing address given above.

NAME PROGRAM TELEPHONE EMAIL

RESPONSIBILITY
Barry Lefer Subelement 1 202-358-3857 Barry.Lefer@nasa.gov
Laura Lorenzoni Subelement 2 202-358-0917 Laura.Lorenzoni@nasa.gov
Mike Falkowski 202-358-1431 Michael.Falkowski@nasa.gov
Subelement 3
Jared Entin Subelement 4 202-358-0275 Jared.K.Entin@nasa.gov
Garik Gutman Subelement 5 202.358.0260 Garik.Gutman@nasa.gov
Thorsten Markus1 Subelement 6 202-358-3860 Thorsten.Markus@nasa.gov
Nadya Vinogradova nadya@nasa.gov
Subelement 7 202-358-0976
Shiffer2
1. Questions regarding planetary aspects of Subelement 6 may be addressed to Mary
Voytek (Mary.Voytek-1@nasa.gov, 202-358-1577) of the Planetary Sciences Division.
2. Questions regarding specific lunar aspects of Subelement 7 may be addressed to
Amanda Nahm (Amanda.L.Nahm@nasa.gov, 202-281-5326) of the Planetary Sciences
Division.

A.28-14
A.29 EARTH SCIENCE RESEARCH FROM OPERATIONAL GEOSTATIONARY SATELLITE SYSTEMS
NOTICE: Amended June 28, 2022. This amendment releases the final
text for this program element, which was previously listed as TBD.
Notices of intent (NOI) to propose are requested by August 2, 2022,
and the due date for proposals is October 19, 2022. This program
requires use of the Earth Science standard templates for the Table of
Work Effort and Current and Pending Support (see Section 3.1).
1. Program Description
Earth Science Research from Operational Geostationary Satellite Systems (ESROGSS)
is a cross-cutting Earth Science Division (ESD) program element managed by the
Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics Focus Area (https://science.nasa.gov/earth-
science/programs/research-analysis/earth-weather) on behalf of ESD. ESROGSS
provides an opportunity for the Earth science research community to perform scientific
research using data from the new generation of operational geostationary satellites to
achieve the following goals:
• Advance the understanding of changes in the Earth’s radiation balance, air
quality, and ozone layer that result from changes in atmospheric composition;
• Improve the capability to predict weather and extreme weather events;
• Detect and predict changes in Earth’s ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles,
including land cover, biodiversity, and the global carbon cycle;
• Enable better assessment and management of water quality and quantity to
accurately predict how the global water cycle evolves in response to climate
change;
• Improve the ability to predict climate changes by better understanding the roles
and interactions of the oceans, atmosphere, land, and ice in the climate system;
• Characterize the dynamics of the Earth’s surface and interior, improving the
capability to assess and respond to natural hazards and extreme events; and
• Further the use of Earth system science research to inform decisions and provide
benefits to society.
In particular, ESROGSS recognizes that the current generation of geostationary
environmental satellites with advanced instruments provides a unique opportunity to
observe Earth system parameters that complement NASA’s observations from low earth
orbit and offer unprecedented spatial and temporal resolution of Earth observations
relevant to these questions.
Through this program element, ESROGSS is providing funding for scientific research
and development proposals that will primarily use data from NOAA’s GOES-R
(http://www.goes-r.gov) series of satellites. Currently, GOES-16 is in the GOES-East
position and GOES-17 in the GOES-West position. The GOES-18 satellite may move to
the GOES-West position in the future. Data from the Earth-pointing instruments, the
Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) and Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM), are
providing a wealth of new information for land, ocean, and atmosphere-based
phenomena and processes.

A.29-1
The vantage points from these geostationary orbits allow high frequency observations
over the same geographic location. On the GOES-16/17/18 platforms, the GLM
observation is every 15 minutes and the frequency of full disk ABI observations is 15 or
30 minutes, depending on the mode of operation. Mesoscale ABI observations may
have a measurement frequency as high as every 30-60 seconds.
This program element focuses on the scientific research enabled by the high frequency
ABI and GLM observations on these platforms. The scope of the current ESROGSS
program element is limited to investigations that primarily use ABI and/or GLM as the
main source(s) of data; integration of GOES data with other data (from geostationary or
other satellites, as well as surface-based measurements) is welcome as long as the ABI
and/or GLM data constitute the primary data source for the proposed work.
In this funding cycle, ESROGSS is not considering algorithm development nor data
product generation as the primary tasks. Proposals that include limited algorithm
development and data production are allowed if the scientific investigation(s) is(are) the
primary task(s) for the proposal. Proposals with a goal to improve previously developed
algorithms for data products, either at NASA or at partner agencies, will not be
considered.
2. Areas of Research Solicited
NASA is interested in investigations that support formulation and implementation of
2017 Decadal Survey (https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/decadal-surveys), Earth
System Explorer and Incubation programs, and U.S. Global Change Research Program
challenge memo (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Lubchenco-
to-Kuperberg-USGCRP-Challenge-Letter.pdf) goals. Two areas of investigation are
solicited in this funding cycle: characterization of fast changing processes (Section 2.1)
and model improvements (Section 2.2).
2.1 Characterization and Understanding of Fast Changing Processes
The increased temporal resolution of these measurements allows investigation into fast
changing phenomena and processes, including their diurnal variations and trends of
these variations. For example, potential investigations could include studies on initiation
of convection, venting of planetary boundary layer material into the troposphere,
transport of smoke, diurnal change of land surface characteristics including wildfire,
diurnal variation of shallow cumulus convection, or cloud-capped marine boundary
layer.
Of particular interest is analysis of the data from mesoscale domains of the GOES-
16/17/18 platforms. Although this program element focuses on investigations that
perform data analysis to better characterize and understand fast changing
environmental (land, ocean, and atmosphere) phenomena and processes using the full
disk and mesoscale domain data, proposals that exploit the synergy between
observations from polar and geostationary orbits and synergy between modeling and
high-spatial-and-temporal resolution observations are encouraged.
Transition of research results to the operational environment is encouraged. After the
targeted phenomena and processes are correctly identified, characterized, and

A.29-2
understood, proposals may include tasks to transition the analytical process or
procedure into an operational environment.
2.2 Model Improvements
ESROGSS seeks proposals that use observations from geostationary satellites to
improve NASA-Unified Weather Research and Forecasting
(https://nuwrf.gsfc.nasa.gov/), Goddard Earth Observing System
(https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/GEOS_systems/), or Goddard Institute for Space Studies
ModelE coupled atmosphere-ocean (https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/) models.
The goal is to allow better encoding of processes in the Earth system models in the way
the models may be constrained by observations. Use of geostationary observations
may be in model development, initialization, or validation.
Use of machine learning/artificial intelligence (ML/AI) techniques is welcomed. However,
given that one of the Earth Science Division’s primary goals is to understand the Earth
as a complete dynamic system, and the goal of this program element is the expansion
of our understanding of the fast changing processes in the Earth system, proposers
utilizing ML/AI should describe how the ML/AI component contributes to that
understanding.
3. Programmatic Information
Those who have never proposed to ROSES should understand its layered structure and
what takes priority. This call for proposals takes precedence, followed by A.1 the Earth
Science Research Program Overview, then the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
(see Section 1(g)), and finally the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Those who have not
proposed to ROSES recently should review what is new in ROSES; see Section 1(d) of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation for a summary of what has changed.

3.1 Proposal Preparation and Submission

Proposals must address one of the overarching goals specified in Section 1 of this
program element or the science questions in Section 2 of A.1 the Earth Science
Research Program Overview.
As described in Section 1.1 of A.1 the Earth Science Research Program Overview, a
Data Management Plan is required and must be placed in a section of up to two pages
immediately following the references and citations for the main
Science/Technical/Management section of the proposal.
Use of Earth Science Division templates for the Table of Work Effort and Current and
Pending Support is required for this solicitation.
NASA will not consider any funding requests for building specialized private Information
Technology (IT) infrastructure for data processing and data archive purposes.
Proposals shall be submitted electronically via the NASA Solicitation and Proposal
Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) or via Grants.gov (see Section
4). Because NASA may choose to hold multiple panels to evaluate the proposals, it is

A.29-3
critical to respond to a specific cover page question regarding the area of investigation
being proposed (see Sections 2.1 and 2.2) when submitting the proposal.

3.2 Resources Available to Proposers

The resources below may be considered when preparing the proposal. Use of these
resources is not required.
3.2.1 GeoNEX Platform and SPoRT Center Resources
NASA maintains a NASA Earth Exchange (NEX) data processing platform at Ames
Research Center (ARC) that includes a data archive. One specific instance in the
geostationary satellite data processing pipeline is Geo-NASA Earth Exchange
(GeoNEX) at https://www.nasa.gov/geonex. GeoNEX is a collaborative effort for
generating Earth monitoring products from the new generation of geostationary satellite
sensors. In collaboration with scientists at NOAA, NASA, and international
organizations, GeoNEX serves as a platform for scientific partnership, knowledge
sharing, and research for the Earth science community. GeoNEX currently offers an
archive of a gridded top-of-atmosphere, Bidirectional Reflectance Factor data product
from the GOES-16/17/18 Advanced Baseline Imagers (ABI) and Advanced Himawari
Imager (AHI). Proposals may obtain archived data from GeoNEX and/or use the
platform for data analysis purposes.
GeoNEX is not designed for permanent data archive purposes and the data collection
may not be comprehensive enough to cover all potential research needs. If certain data
are not available on GeoNEX, NOAA satellite datasets are available for download from
the Comprehensive Large Array-Data Stewardship System (CLASS) archive at
https://www.class.noaa.gov/. Proposers must make their own arrangements to access
these data, which should be made available through NASA or NOAA systems for future
projects following the open data policy described in Section 3.2.2.
For near real time GOES data access, users are directed to the Short-term Prediction
Research and Transition (SPoRT; https://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/sport/) Center, where
two GOES Rebroadcast (GRB) ground stations are receiving and distributing near real
time data for research and analysis purposes.
3.2.2 Cloud Computing Resources
This program also encourages proposals that use commercial cloud-native
environments. NASA, along with other government agencies, has increasingly been
looking to commercial cloud vendors for secure, maintainable, cost-effective, and
versatile computing infrastructure. Recent NASA Earth Observing System Data and
Information System (EOSDIS) prototype efforts seek to leverage commercial cloud
resources for such activities as data storage, processing, and simple data analysis.
Proposers should review ongoing cloud computing activities
(https://earthdata.nasa.gov/cloud) and consider how to best leverage or build off of
these efforts in the cloud to ensure their submission will be well-positioned for future
integration and adoption by the Earth Science Data Systems (ESDS;
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/esds) program.

A.29-4
Use of cloud computing resources is appropriate to this solicitation, especially because
much of the geostationary data are available in the cloud through NOAA’s Big Data
Program (see the GOES-16 and GOES-17 section of the List of NOAA Open Data
Dissemination Program Datasets).
When commercial cloud computing resources are required for the proposed project, the
proposal shall include the cost of cloud computing in the budget.
3.3 Evaluation and Selection of Proposals
All proposals will be peer reviewed consistent with Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation. Depending on the number of proposals received, NASA may
choose to hold multiple review panels based on the area of proposed investigation.
The three primary evaluation criteria – Merit, Relevance, and Cost – are defined in
Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and proposals will be evaluated vs.
these criteria consistent with Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
3.4 Funding and Awards
Consistent with Section 1 of A.1 the Earth Science Research Program Overview,
awards to non-governmental organizations will be made as grants or cooperative
agreements, whichever is most appropriate based upon the nature of the work solicited.
NASA will not award contracts for this program element. Awards internal to the
government will be made through the usual agency processes. The government’s
obligation to make award(s) is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds
from which payment can be made and the receipt of proposals that NASA determines
are acceptable for award under this program element. No additional funds beyond the
negotiated award value will be available. NASA does not allow for payment of profit or
fee to commercial firms under grant awards.
3.5 Period of Performance
Awards resulting from this call have a maximum performance period of 36 months.
Proposals must define clear, measurable milestones to be achieved for each year of
performance to warrant continuation into the second and subsequent years.
3.6 Travel
One annual domestic trip to the newly-created NASA Geostationary REsearch and
Application Team (GREAT) meeting (in the following order: Hampton, VA; Mountain
View, CA; and Huntsville, AL) is required. Proposers are also strongly encouraged to
present research and development progress and results at a professional conference
(e.g., AMS or AGU) annually.
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first $1.5M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~8 projects
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years

A.29-5
Due date for Notice of Intent
(NOI) to propose
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
July, 2023
15 pages; see Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and
Section 3 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers
Proposals relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of
ROSES-2022
See the NSPIRES Online Help page, Sections
3.22-4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ESROGSS
Tsengdar Lee
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0860
Email: tsengdar.lee@nasa.gov
A.29-6
A.30 THE PLANKTON, AEROSOL, CLOUD, OCEAN ECOSYSTEM MISSION VALIDATION
NOTICE: Amended November 28, 2022. This amendment releases the
final text and due dates for this program element, which was
previously TBD. Proposals to this program are submitted by a two-
step process in which the Notice of Intent is replaced by a required
Step-1 proposal submitted by an Authorized Organizational
Representative, see Section 7 for details. Step-1 Proposals are due
March 7, 2023, and Step-2 Proposals are due May 05, 2023. A Webex
Meeting for potential proposers to this program element will occur on
December 7, 2022, see Section 9.1.
Proposals to this program element require an Open-Source Science
Development Plan (see Section 5.2) that is to be immediately followed
by a SeaBASS data submission form (see Section 5.3). See Table A.30-
5 for the required components of the Step-2 Proposal in order.
This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan Program,
see Section 5.4. This Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival
ratings nor selection recommendations for this opportunity.
Proposals submitted to this opportunity must use the Earth Science
templates for Work Effort and Current and Pending Support from
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-science-
division-appendix-a-roses-proposals.
1. Scope of Program
The Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) mission is part of NASA's
implementation of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine
(NASEM) report, Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth
Observations from Space released in early 2018 (herein referred to as the "Decadal
Survey"). The PACE mission remains part of its Program of Record, to be executed as
planned in the Decadal Survey. Technical documents and presentations related to the
mission, including its Science Definition Team report and a series of NASA Technical
Memoranda, can be found on the PACE website. Key characteristics of the PACE
observatory and anticipated science data products can also be found on the website.
PACE is anticipated to launch in January 2024. PACE measurements will directly
support Administration priorities set in the Ocean Policy Committee (OPC) Ocean
Climate Action Plan (OCAP); it will also be responsive to priorities identified by the
World Resources Institute Ocean Panel, the USGCRP 2022-2031 Strategic Plan, and
by the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. In addition to the
above, PACE data will also be critical to understand the state of ecosystems for
activities such as marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) and negative emission and
carbon sequestration approaches. PACE will extend aerosol and cloud data records
begun by the passive EOS-era instruments as an aerosol-cloud-climate continuity
mission. Ultimately, PACE will deliver climate-quality global ocean color and
atmospheric measurements that are essential to advancing our understanding of the
Earth System and to address pressing questions related to ecosystem change. It will
add to and continue the critically important time series of ocean color and atmospheric

A.30-1
measurements that are essential to deconvolve anthropogenic changes from natural
variability.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is seeking proposals to
support the post-launch validation of PACE science data products. Here, validation
refers to performance assessment and ‘ground-truthing’ of the science data products
produced by PACE to evaluate and reduce uncertainty in these products. The primary
goal for this program element is the accumulation and/or collection of in situ or other fit-
for-purpose data to validate ocean color, atmospheric aerosol, and/or cloud data
products from PACE’s trio of instruments. The Ocean Color Instrument (OCI) is the
primary instrument on the observatory and consists of two spectrometers that
continuously span the ultraviolet to orange and orange to near-infrared spectral regions,
with an additional seven discrete shortwave infrared bands. OCI is complemented by
two small, multi-angle polarimeters, the Hyper-Angular Rainbow Polarimeter 2 (HARP2)
and Spectro-polarimeter for Planetary Exploration (SPEXone), with spectral ranges that
span the visible to near-infrared region.
While scientific investigations utilizing PACE data are of utmost importance to continue
critical climate characterization, further our understanding of aquatic biogeochemistry
and ecology, and pioneer new data products that will expand our appreciation of life in
the ocean and how it is changing, this program element is specifically focused on data
collection for the assessment of performance and validation of PACE data that would
enable such scientific investigations to take place. Therefore, NASA is NOT soliciting
question/hypothesis-driven investigations NOR novel science algorithm development
activities here. Rather, it seeks to support efforts that will enable the performance
assessment of PACE data products through the collection of direct and proxy
measurements suitable for PACE-specific product validation and uncertainties
assessments.
2. Solicited Activities
The ability of an ocean color and atmospheric mission to meet its key science objectives
depends primarily upon the quality of the ocean ecosystem and biogeochemistry and
aerosol and cloud data products derived from radiometric data collected by the sensor.
Thus, a stringent validation effort is required to characterize instrument data product
performances, retrieval uncertainty models, and stability over time. This program
element requests collection or accumulation of data for the performance assessment
and validation of ocean color, atmospheric aerosol, and cloud data products from the
PACE observatory.
Per formal mission requirements, PACE science data products fall into two categories:
required (Table A.30-1) and advanced (Tables A.30-2 and -3 of this program element).
Required data products encompass core radiometric ocean color and heritage
atmospheric retrievals that OCI must produce to meet fundamental mission science
objectives. These key data records extend heritage capabilities (e.g., from the Sea
viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS); Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS); and Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS)).
These core variables will also be used to assess OCI performance to evaluate its
design and achievement of mission success. Advanced data products refer broadly to

A.30-2
science data products that expand upon heritage retrievals from the EOS-era using the
hyperspectral and multi-angular polarimetric capabilities of the PACE observatory and,
thus, can encompass OCI, HARP2, and/or SPEXone. This program element seeks to
validate both categories via two independent, but complementary, subelements. The
work selected in response to the two subelements is planned to be phased differently.
2.1 Subelement A: Performance assessment of required data products from OCI
This subelement specifically targets those science data products listed in Table A.30-1,
with the goal of evaluating OCI performance and verifying achievement of uncertainty
requirements related to instrument design through direct validation activities. Here,
direct validation refers specifically to the comparison of observations of ‘truth’ with OCI
retrievals, where ‘truth’ is an in situ measurement or remotely sensed data product from
another previously validated instrument in the case where in situ measurements or
readily available data products are not possible. Through this subelement, this program
element seeks the collection or assembly of measurements to be used to assess OCI
performance against the uncertainty requirements listed in Table A.30-1.
Responsive proposals will include (1) field efforts to collect in situ data, (2) efforts to
compile data from existing in situ efforts (collected after observatory commissioning)
with adequate calibration standards (e.g., adherence to the International Ocean-Colour
Coordinating Group (IOCCG) measurement protocols), and/or (3) compilation of fit-for-
purpose remote sensing science data products in the case where no other
measurement or data product is available. This program element does not seek
collection and/or analysis of existing AERONET or AERONET-OC data streams, as
they are already being pursued, apart from support for modified operations and data
processing that clearly provides enhanced support for the validation of PACE products.
The core measurements to be validated through this subelement are listed in Table
A.30-1 Required science data products and their associated retrieval uncertainties to be
derived from OCI to achieve mission success. In addition to these, relevant and
complementary measurements (e.g., concentrations of photosynthetic pigments and
aquatic inherent optical properties (IOPs) collected coincidentally with water-leaving
reflectance and with adherence to community-vetted measurement protocols) are
encouraged so long as they do not diminish the collection of core measurements and
adhere to community protocols.
The PACE mission is required to report on OCI performance and uncertainties within
one year of in-orbit commissioning (currently anticipated to be April 2024). As such, this
subelement seeks high data volumes across spatial, trophic, and/or temporal domains
with specific spatial, spectral, and temporal requirements as described below:
i. Latency: All data generated under this element must have a low data latency
(<60 days) from time of collection to delivery to the Project (see Sec. 4.3). This
includes satellite intercomparisons. Fast data access to in situ and other
measurements will be critical for early validation of PACE required science data
products.
ii. Spatial distribution: A range of spatial distributions of acquired data is desirable.
For ocean color, this includes both coastal and open ocean locations. The latter
is particularly important as PACE has a requirement to assess water-leaving

A.30-3
 reflectance in the deep ocean (> 1000 m depth; see also Section 3 for more
information). For atmospheric aerosol products, this includes the full range from
pristine to highly polluted aerosol conditions with a range of aerosol types and for
atmospheric cloud products a range of cloud types and/or cloud optical depths
and particle sizes.
iii. Spectral requirements: Table A.30-1 details the required data product
performance assessment needs for spectrally-dependent variables needs. These
include water-leaving reflectances at 350, 360, 385, 412, 425, 443, 460, 475,
490, 510, 532, 555, 583, 617, 640, 655, 665, 678, and 710 nm; and aerosol
optical thickness (AOT) at 380, 440, 500, 550, and 675 nm. Given the nature of
OCI, however, hyperspectral validation data spanning ~340 to >800 nm will be
prioritized over discrete multispectral measurements to allow for additional
assessments.
Table A.30-1 Required science data products and their associated retrieval
uncertainties to be derived from OCI to achieve mission success.
Data Product Uncertainty*
Water-leaving reflectances centered on (±2.5 nm) 350, 360, and 385 nm 0.0057 or 20%
(15 nm bandwidth)
Water-leaving reflectances centered on (±2.5 nm) 412, 425, 443, 460, 0.0020 or 5%
475, 490, 510, 532, 555, and 583 nm (15 nm bandwidth)
Water-leaving reflectances centered on (±2.5 nm) 617, 640, 655, 665, 0.0007 or 10%
678 and 710 nm (15 nm bandwidth except for 10 nm bandwidth for 665
and 678 nm)
Total aerosol optical depth at 380 nm (range: 0 to 5) 0.06 or 40%
Total aerosol optical depth at 440, 500, 550 and 675 nm over land 0.06 or 20%
(range: 0 to 5)
Total aerosol optical depth at 440, 500, 550 and 675 nm over ocean 0.04 or 15%
(range: 0 to 5)
Fraction of visible aerosol optical depth from fine mode aerosols over ±25%
oceans at 550 nm (range: 0 to 1)
Cloud layer detection for optical depth > 0.3 40%
Cloud top pressure of opaque (optical depth > 3) clouds (range: 100 to 60 hPa
1000 hPa)
Optical thickness of liquid clouds (range: 5 to 100) 25%
Optical thickness of ice clouds (range: 5 to 100) 35%
Effective radius of liquid clouds (range: 5 to 50 mm) 25%
Effective radius of ice clouds (range: 5 to 50 mm) 35%
* Water-leaving reflectance uncertainties are defined for 50% or more of the observable deep ocean
(depth > 1000 m). Aerosol and cloud uncertainties are defined for 65% of the observable atmosphere.
In addition to the required data products on Table A.30-1, OCI must also produce
estimates of concentrations of chlorophyll-a, spectral absorption coefficients of
phytoplankton and non-algal particles plus colored dissolved organic matter, spectral
backscattering coefficients of particles, spectral diffuse attenuation coefficients,
fluorescence line height, and water paths of liquid and ice clouds. These derived
products do not have associated instrument uncertainty requirements.

A.30-4
2.2 Subelement B: Performance assessment of advanced data products from OCI and
the polarimeters
This subelement specifically targets science data products that exploit the hyperspectral
and multi-angular polarimetric capabilities of the PACE observatory and go beyond what
is possible with heritage approaches from the EOS-era. Tables A.30-2 and -3 provide
examples of advanced science data products for OCI and the two multi-angle
polarimeters, respectively. The PACE Web site provides an additional, non-exhaustive
list of desired and anticipated science data products. This subelement has two goals:
(1) evaluate the performance of such advanced products and (2) obtain more complete
suites of measurements for use in future algorithm development, refinement, and
assessment activities. The first goal supports the direct validation, as defined for
subelement A, of OCI, HARP2, and/or SPEXone science data products. The second
goal supports future proxy validation activities through the compilation of more
‘complete’ datasets, relative to subelement A, that include measurements similar to
those to be collected onboard the PACE observatory for evaluation of algorithm
performance. For ocean color, for example, this might include collection and/or
assembly of an in situ dataset that includes hyperspectral water-leaving reflectance,
inherent optical properties (IOPs), and metrics of phytoplankton community composition
(PCC).
Coincident observatory-to-in situ comparisons or matchups are welcome. Responsive
proposals can include field efforts to collect in situ data, as well as compilation of data
from existing in situ efforts (collected before, during, and after observatory
commissioning) with adequate calibration standards (e.g., adherence to IOCCG
measurement protocols). This subelement does not seek algorithm development or
refinement activities as the core proposed work.
Much like Subelement A, this subelement has specific spectral and temporal
requirements as described below:
i. Latency: All data generated under this subelement must have a low data latency
(<90 days) from time of collection to delivery to the Project. This fast data access
to in situ measurements will be critical for early validation of PACE required
science data products.
ii. Spatial: As for Subelement A, a range of spatial distribution of data is desirable.
iii. Spectral: For spectrally-dependent variables, hyperspectral data spanning ~340
to ~800 nm will be required for this subelement as possible and as
instrumentation allows.
Table A.30-2. Example advanced data products to be derived from OCI. Adapted from
the draft PACE Validation Plan. This is not an exhaustive list of advanced products
Advanced ocean data products
Particulate organic carbon concentration
Coastal dissolved organic carbon concentration
Particulate inorganic carbon
Suspended particulate matter
Vertical carbon flux
Phytoplankton photosynthetic pigments concentrations
Phytoplankton photoprotective pigments concentrations

A.30-5
Phytoplankton community composition (on basis of Phyto_C, %total chlorophyll,
biovolume)
Fluorescence quantum yield
Net primary production
Colored dissolved organic matter absorption coefficient
Photosynthetically Available Radiation (PAR)
Phytoplankton carbon (Cphyto)
Advanced aerosol data products
Fraction of visible aerosol optical depth from fine mode aerosols over land at 550 nm
Aerosol Ångström exponent over land
Aerosol Ångström exponent over water
Aerosol effective altitude over land
Aerosol effective altitude over water
UV absorbing aerosol index
Advanced cloud data products
None

Table A.30-3. Example advanced data products to be derived from HARP2 and
SPEXone. Adapted from the draft PACE Validation Plan. This is not an exhaustive list
of advanced products.
Advanced aerosol data products
Total aerosol optical depth at 380 nm
Total aerosol optical depth at 440, 500, 550 and 675 nm over land
Total aerosol optical depth at 440, 500, 550 and 675 nm over oceans
Total aerosol optical depth at 440, 500, 550 and 675 nm over liquid clouds
Fraction of visible aerosol optical depth from fine mode aerosols over oceans at 550
nm
Fraction of visible aerosol optical depth from fine mode aerosols over land at 550 nm
Aerosol Ångström exponent over land
Aerosol Ångström exponent over water
UV absorbing aerosol index
Aerosol and Cirrus detection
Effective aerosol layer altitude
Aerosol effective radius (two modes)
Aerosol effective variance (two modes)
Aerosol sphericity characterization
Aerosol concentration (two modes)
Aerosol absorption optical depth (spectral, two modes)
Single scattering albedo (spectral, two modes)
Refractive index/Real (spectral, two modes)
Advanced cloud data products
Cloud layer detection
Cloud top pressure of opaque (optical depth > 3) clouds
Multiple cloud layer detection
Optical thickness of liquid clouds
Optical thickness of ice clouds
Effective radius of liquid clouds

A.30-6
 Effective variance of liquid clouds
Ice crystal roughness
Ice crystal aspect ratio
Effective radius of ice clouds*
Water path of liquid clouds (derived from products above)
Water path of ice clouds (derived from products above)
Advanced ocean data products
Surface ocean wind vectors
Water-leaving reflectances
Particle size distribution
Bulk refractive index
Scattering coefficient
Ratio of attenuation to absorption
*Advanced product would use ice crystal roughness and aspect ratio in OCI size retrieval.

3. Key considerations for the proposed data products

The overarching guidelines detailed below should be considered for all proposals, in
addition to the specific spatial, spectral and temporal requirements detailed in
Subelements A and B.
i. Spatial scales: To ensure readiness and applicability of products, this program
element seeks to assess PACE observatory performance across a range of
biogeochemical and ecological conditions. For the ocean, this will require
measurements collected over the first optical depth in the deep open ocean,
coastal waters, and undersampled spatial domains (locations with lack of historical
validation data – see Figure A.30-1). At this time, inland water bodies smaller than
the Great Lakes (e.g., smaller than ~20,000 km2) are not being prioritized.
Atmospheric measurements in the aggregate should encompass a range of
aerosol types, such as, but not limited to pollution, fire emissions, mineral dust, sea
salt, sulfates, nitrates and organic aerosols. If remote sensing observations are
included, measurement locations should include a range of surface types, such as,
but not limited to open ocean, vegetated land, bare soils, deserts and polar
regions.
ii. Temporal scales: Temporal range (e.g., to capture seasonal or subseasonal
variability) in both hemispheres is of interest to ensure observation of a dynamic
range of conditions, assessing short-term cycling of biogeochemical elements
and/or ecological or physical events of short periodicity, and assessment of
temporal degradation of the instruments.
iii. Data latency: All data generated under this program element must have a low data
latency (<60 and <90 days for subelements A and B, respectively) from time of
collection to delivery to the PACE Project. This supersedes the standard NASA
Earth Science Data and Information Policy. Failure to submit data to the PACE
Project in this timeframe will jeopardize proposed project continuation.
iv. Protocols: All in situ data collected or to be utilized in response to this program
element must follow or have been acquired using community-established
protocols. For ocean color, data collection, treatment, and analyses must follow the
recommendations of the IOCCG and OCB. In the absence of an available protocol,

A.30-7
 a measurement must have a comprehensive error budget supporting its
measurement uncertainties and NIST traceability where feasible.
v. Synergies: synergies and/or leveraging existing in situ data collection programs
with rigorous calibration standards are welcome, including data collection
programs that collect other ancillary data that would enable putting the PACE
products in context. Examples include, but are not limited to, biogeochemical and
ecological time-series, BGC-Argo floats, ship-based time series, repeat and
opportunistic hydrographic cruises (e.g., Tara, CLIVAR, AMT), etc. Proposers are
also encouraged to leverage other planned or ongoing NASA airborne field
campaigns (e.g., PACE-PAX, ASIA-AQ, ARCSIX, etc.), and/or campaigns
supported by other agencies. Support for PACE-PAX, for example, would be
regarded as a strength (see Section 6.3 for more information on PACE-PAX).
Figure A.30-1: Relative density of SeaBASS Archive measurements by location

4. Additional Information
4.1 Timeline
Selections to this program element are anticipated to take place by summer 2023, with
a start date in October 2023. It is anticipated that selected Principal Investigators (PIs)
and/or their teams will comprise the PACE Validation Science Team (PVST) and
strategize, together with the Project Science Team, the implementation of the collective
validation approach. The PVST team will also interact with a PVST Project Office (see
Section 4.5.1), the PACE-PAX team (see Section 6.3), the PACE System Vicarious
Calibration teams, the PACE Science and Applications Team, and the PACE Science
Data Segment within 1-2 months of the start date of the award to draft such an
implementation plan.

A.30-8
The work selected in response to Subelements A and B is anticipated to be phased
differently (Table A.30-4). Each will span three years, with Subelement A awardees
anticipated to be in the field collecting measurements or synthetizing data in the late
spring of 2024 after PACE completes in-orbit commissioning, and to deliver the first
data to SeaBASS and the PACE Project (see Section 4.3) by early summer 2024.
Subelement B is anticipated to begin their activities approximately a year after
Subelement A, with some involvement also expected at the onset of activities in the first
quarter of 2024 to ensure they are part of the implementation plan.
4.2 Budget
The anticipated period of performance for PACE validation activities is four (4) years,
with the majority of the activities (and thus the budget) for both subelements
concentrated in three (3) of the four years. Minimal budgetary requests are anticipated
for the remaining year, commensurate with the start up (in the case of Subelement B) or
wrap up (in the case of Subelement A) coordination activities to which that year would
be dedicated. The final PVST implementation plan will be defined post selection.
Note on instrumentation to be purchased through this program element: NASA will
execute the purchase and calibration of new instruments costing $10,000 or more
sought to be used during the PVST. Thus, in response to a question with the Step-1
proposal on the NSPIRES web page PIs are asked to list all the instruments that will be
required to support their proposed work during PACE PVST, and indicate which
instruments are not available to the PI.
The Step-2 (full) proposal must list instrumentation required for their proposed work
indicating clearly which instruments are available and which must be purchased. The
proposal budget section should enumerate and account for the cost of instruments with
all necessary accessories and points of contact from the manufacturers that are to be
purchased. PIs should include in their budgets costs of all necessary instruments,
understanding that, subject to proposal review and availability of appropriated funds, if
NASA is to purchase that instrumentation post selection, those costs will be removed
from the PI’s budget at the time of award. NASA also anticipates carrying out the
necessary calibrations for specific field instruments including hyperspectral radiometers
and aquatic hyperspectral absorption meters and spectral backscatter sensors that will
support direct validation of PACE data products. PIs should include round-trip shipping
estimates to the furthest US coast for calibrations two times per year during the three-
year field deployment period of the proposed effort. Unless otherwise noted, after the
PVST work has been completed, the instruments purchased by NASA will return to
NASA.
Table A.30-4. Anticipated phasing plan for the Subelements, placed in context of
different PACE activities. PVST-A – projects selected under Subelement A, PVST-B –
projects selected under Subelement B.
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Selections
PVST
Kickoff
PSVT

A.30-9
PACE
Launch
PACE
First Light
Start
PVST-A
Start
PVST-B
SAT 3
PACE
PAX

Some level of engagement

Fully engaged in projects

5 Required Elements for Proposals

All Step-2 proposals submitted in response to this program element must include (1) a
discussion in the Scientific/Technical/Management Section describing how errors and
uncertainties of their measurements will be addressed (see Section 5.1) and (2) a
description in the Open-Source Science Development Plan (see Section 5.2) that
addresses the dissemination and sharing of research results and compliance with data
latency guidelines in this program element, as well as the NASA Earth Science Data
and Information. Unless specified in this section, proposals should follow the format and
content provided in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Table A.30-5 provides a list
and order of the required elements of all Step-2 proposals.
Table A.30-5: Step-2 Proposal Document – Required Parts in Order
Proposal part Requirements or specific information
Table of contents
Scientific/Technical/
15 pages; Must include a section on errors and
Management (S/T/M)
uncertainties (see Section 5.1 of this program element)
Section
References No page limit
Open-Source Science
Up to two pages, see section 5.2
Development Plan
SeaBASS data submission form which may be
SeaBASS data
downloaded from under other documents on the NSPIRES
submission form
page for this program element. See section 5.3
Inclusion Plan Up to two pages, see Section 5.4 of this program element
Biographical sketches Required, see Table 1 of ROSES for details/requirements.
Table of Personnel and Must utilize ESD Templates found at
Work Effort https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-
science-division-appendix-a-roses-proposals
Must utilize ESD Templates found at
Current/Pending https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-
science-division-appendix-a-roses-proposals
Redacted Budget and No page limit; should include any quotes for new
budget justification instrumentation anticipated to be purchased
Facilities and Equipment No page limit

A.30-10
5.1 Requirement to Address Errors and Uncertainties
Characterization of uncertainties will be essential in all analyses proposed to be
undertaken under this program element. For a Step-2 proposal to be considered
responsive to this element, it must explain how error and uncertainty of the acquired
data will be considered and reported. This explanation must include characterization of
uncertainties and quantification of errors associated with data, analytical approaches,
and model results, as well as a discussion on how these uncertainties adequately
support the OCI and polarimeter requirements listed in Tables A.30-1-3. This discussion
must be described in the Scientific/Technical/Management Section of the proposal.
Investigators collecting water samples for ocean color data product validation should
address sampling uncertainty pertaining to spatial (horizontal and vertical) and temporal
measurement variability. Specifically, a subset of samples (~10% or more of total
samples per measurement) should be collected following proper replicate sample
collection and not pseudo-replicates, which are typically based on triplicate water
sample filters or filtrates from a single water parcel sample (Niskin bottle or other). This
is necessary to compute the end-to-end uncertainties of in situ measurements which
propagate to satellite sensor data product validation.
5.2 Requirement for Data Submission and Open-Source Science Development Plan
All Step-2 proposals must contain an Open-Source Science Development Plan
(OSSDP), which replaces the Data Management Plan. The OSSDP may not exceed
two pages in length and must immediately follow the references and citations for the
Scientific/Technical/Management Section of the proposal. The two-page OSSDP
section does not count against the 15-page limit of the Scientific/Technical/
Management Section. Formatting requirements for the OSSDP are the same as for the
Scientific/Technical/Management Section. The OSSDP must conform to Earth Science
Division guidelines.
The OSSDP section must include the types of data and data products to be produced in
the course of the project, the standards to be used for data and metadata formats, and
plans for providing access to and/or archiving the data and other research products in
compliance with the data latency requirements of this program element (see Sections
2.1 and 2.2). It must also include a section that describes how project materials will be
openly available, including the management of the materials developed as part of the
project, and how they will be released openly. All in situ data collected as part of this
program element are to be archived in the SeaWiFS Bio-optical Archive and Storage
System (SeaBASS), within the Ocean Biology Distributed Active Archive System
(OB.DAAC), and must be submitted in compliance with the data latency requirements of
this solicitation, depending on the subelement. Any remote sensing products assembled
for intercomparisons with PACE retrievals must be submitted to the PACE Project within
the same timeframe.
5.3 SeaBASS data submission form
Step-2 Proposals must include, immediately following the OSSDP, the types of data
generated in the form of a list or table, plans and a timeframe for submission. An
example downloadable “SeaBASS data submission form” under "Other Documents" on
the NSPIRES page for this program element. For each dataset, proposers should

A.30-11
identify the method for collection or instruments, briefly describe the data type, and
specify the expected data size. Proposers must use the Explanation/Comments space
to provide additional relevant details on the parameters/methods as necessary and to
justify if the required data latency for each subelement cannot be met. Data collection
and analysis methods are expected to follow community-vetted protocols, and datasets
must be accompanied by complete documentation and calibration information (see
"Contribute Data" sections of the SeaBASS website). Consistent with the OSSDP, costs
needed to support all data management activities, including quality assessment,
documentation, data and product sharing, and preparation for long-term archive, must
be included in the budget presented in the proposal. In addition, the person(s) within the
proposing team responsible for data management must be identified, and the time to be
devoted to data management detailed in the table of personnel effort. NASA strongly
encourages allocating resources within the proposal budget to adequately address data
management needs. Datasets will be reviewed for compliance shortly after submission.
5.4 Inclusion Plan
Inclusion is a core NASA value, exemplified by NASA in the Administrator’s policy
statement on this Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA). Additionally,
Strategy 4.1 of “Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence” states: “Increase
the diversity of thought and backgrounds represented across the entire SMD portfolio
through a more inclusive environment.” This strategy clearly underscores the
importance of DEIA in NASA’s work.
This solicitation defines inclusion as the full participation, belonging, and contribution of
groups and individuals within an organization or endeavor. Note that inclusion is distinct
and different from diversity. Inclusion requires that everyone's contributions be valued,
that individuals, regardless of the diversity dimension, can do their best work and
advance.
By fostering an atmosphere of inclusion and respect for all, we value the strengths
afforded by both our commonalities and differences with an aim to fully engage varied
talents, ideas, and perspectives. Projects that offer an opportunity to use and empower
the nation's diverse talent pool and increase its participation in science are strongly
encouraged.
In support of NASA's core value of Inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate
Science Plan Strategy 4.1, this program element requires the addition of an Inclusion
Plan of up to three pages in length, immediately following the Open-Source Science
Development Plan (OSSDP). Where applicable or necessary, Inclusion Plans shall cite
any relevant references from social science literature, NASA Decadal Surveys, etc.,
used to create the Inclusion Plan and include these references in a separate reference
list immediately following the Inclusion Plan text. This list of references does not count
towards the Inclusion Plan page limit and shall be separate from those for the main
S/T/M Section. If institutions or partners are contributing to or assisting with the
Inclusion Plan efforts, but they are not otherwise on the proposal team, then Letters of
Resource Support (see Table 1 of Checklist for ROSES-2022 Proposals) must be
included after the Inclusion Plan references and do not count toward the 3-page limit.

A.30-12
 5.4.1 Inclusion Plan Requirements
The Inclusion Plan shall clearly state goals for creating and sustaining a positive and
inclusive working environment and describe activities to achieve these goals including:
○ Identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment that are
specific to the team carrying out the proposed investigation;
○ Address ways in which the investigation team will work to attenuate or reduce
these barriers, such as fostering communication and openness amongst the
team, accounting for power dynamics to support the team (e.g., awareness of
positionality affecting the behaviors team members), elevating voices, etc., to
create and sustain an inclusive environment.
○ Describe any training(s) that the team would participate in (e.g., bystander
intervention training, microagression awareness training, etc.) to equip and train
team members in such a way that they can go on to lead and contribute to other
teams that are inclusive; and
○ Contain metrics for measuring the success of these activities.
Proposals shall tailor their Inclusion Plans specifically to barriers the team is aware of
that they will/may encounter during the course of the proposed work, rather than to
generic issues surrounding inclusion, and how the team will work to overcome those
barriers to create a positive and inclusive working environment; inclusion plans are not
intended to be applicable to the broader STEM community. Proposers are encouraged
to leverage institutional resources when available, but if the plan includes a restatement
of policies of the host institution, it shall also provide a clear discussion of how these
policies connect to the proposed investigation and proposal team. Note that an Inclusion
Plan is not the same as public engagement efforts or team building exercises.
Proposal teams are encouraged to budget FTEs for team members to carry out the
proposed Inclusion Plan activities. Proposals must identify the team member(s), the
requested FTEs (if applicable), and in which activity(ies) they will be participating.
Proposers may request funding for the hiring of DEIA experts as Co-Is or consultants to
advise on or oversee the proposed Inclusion Plan efforts. It is the proposal team’s
responsibility to carry out the proposed activities rather than fully outsource them. All
team members are expected to contribute to fostering an inclusive and positive work
environment.
Any funding requested for Inclusion Plan-related activities shall be explicitly identified
and justified in the Inclusion Plan section and clearly listed in the proposal’s main
budget. These will be assessed for reasonableness by the Inclusion Plan panel.
Some resources and research that may be useful when formulating an Inclusion Plan
can be found here.
Progress in executing the investigation’s Inclusion Plan shall be reported annually as
part of the annual progress report.
5.4.2 Evaluation of Inclusion Plan
The Inclusion Plan will be evaluated by a panel of experts for adequacy,
appropriateness, and completeness; feedback will be provided to the proposers in the

A.30-13
form of a DEIA panel evaluation. For the assessment of the Inclusion Plan, the review
panel will be asked the following factors:
● The extent to which the Inclusion Plan demonstrated awareness of systemic
barriers to creating inclusive working environments that are specific to the
proposal team
● The extent to which the Inclusion Plan provided appropriate processes and goals
for both creating and sustaining a positive and inclusive working environment for
the investigation team
● Whether the Inclusion Plan contained actionable activities including training that
will foster inclusive practices among team members that they can then use
beyond the funded period
● Whether the Inclusion Plan provided reasonable and appropriate metrics for
measuring progress in and success of the proposed activities
● Whether reasonable and realistic resources were requested to complete the
proposed activities, with appropriate justification
The assessment of the Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival rating for the
proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals. However, funding will be
released only once a satisfactory Inclusion Plan has been submitted and has been
approved by the selection official.
6. Programmatic Information
6.1 Remote Sensing
While for most NASA proposals the use of remote sensing data is strongly encouraged,
the use of remote sensing data will not be required for this program element. Proposals
must explain, however, how the data to be collected address the validation of PACE
measurements and contribute to future science that will be performed using these data.
6.2 PACE PVST Organization and Management
NASA will establish a virtual PACE PVST Project Office to support the coordination of
field activities and operations to be conducted as part of PACE validation efforts. In
addition, some aspects of the PACE PVST organizational structure and management
support will be planned and/or established separately with the support of the Earth
Science Project Office (ESPO). The purpose of the Project Office will be to: (1) enhance
communication among PIs and domestic and international partners; (2) support
planning and logistical support for deployments, if required; (3) help coordinate
operations during the collaborative field efforts, if required; (4) interface with the PACE-
PAX effort; (5) oversee data submission by PIs to central data archives; and, (6)
facilitate communication among PIs and PACE Project science leads regarding post-
collection data analysis and validation activities. Investigators should plan to work
closely with the Project Office and rely upon guidance from it for field activities and
coordination and communications of all PVST related activities.
The PACE PVST Project Office will be established shortly after the selection of
proposals submitted in response to this program element. NASA anticipates that most
Project Office business will be conducted virtually. The Project Office will be led by
PACE Project Science, with support from the PACE-PAX team, the System Vicarious

A.30-14
Calibration teams, the Science and Applications Team as appropriate, the PACE
Science Data Segment, and NASA’s Earth Science Project Office (ESPO). Additional
members may be added pending NASA Program Officer approval and may include any
partner organization’s Program Officers and/or partner organization designated science
leads. The Project Office personnel will work in close coordination with the team of
selected PIs and the agency Program Officer(s).
The Project Office will also be responsible for organizing and conducting annual PI
meetings. Face-to-face meetings are essential to enable synergistic activities required
to address PACE performance assessments and their interpretation. To this end, all
proposers should budget for one three-day PACE PVST team meeting in early 2024,
and one three-day meeting per each year of their period of performance thereafter.
Proposers should assume a mix of meeting locations (East Coast and West Coast)
within the United States but should budget meeting travel costs to the farthest coast. PIs
are also strongly encouraged to attend the annual NASA Ocean Color Research Team
(OCRT) meeting or equivalent within the United States (for the NASA OCRT, PIs should
budget a two-day trip to the farthest coast once per year, unless otherwise specified).
PIs are also strongly encouraged to budget for their students to attend these meetings.
6.3 Other Information and Requirements Regarding General Content
Investigators proposing high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) phytoplankton
pigment sample analysis will not be required to include a separate budget for HPLC
processing cost if samples are anticipated to be submitted to the NASA-supported
analytical facility (currently Goddard Space Flight Center; GSFC) for a complete suite of
acetone-extractable pigments. However, proposers must indicate in their proposal the
estimated number of samples they anticipate collecting and submitting for processing,
as well as an approximate timeline of such collection and submission. Approximately
5% (and preferably 100%) of the pigment samples should be submitted in duplicate for
assessment of replicate sample precision. Proposers should budget for shipping costs
of samples and return of the shipping container. Investigators may make separate
arrangements with a non-NASA supported analytical facility for HPLC pigment sample
analysis but, should they choose to do so, will need to provide a justification as to why
such facility is preferred. Investigators that do not use the NASA-supported facility must
send a sub-set of duplicate samples (~10% of total) to the GSFC facility and budget for
these additional samples accordingly. This allows for lab-to-lab inter-comparison of
pigment results and assessment of measurement uncertainties.
All PIs will be required to intercalibrate instrumentation to ensure consistent
measurements are being obtained. Proposers are encouraged to budget for such
calibrations/intercalibrations; this includes, but may not be limited to, calibration costs
and shipping. The PACE PVST Project Office will coordinate all instrument
intercalibrations.
Proposers are encouraged to self-assemble into teams if this enables them to address
the scope of this program element. Proposers are also encouraged to jointly work with
national and international partners (the latter on a no exchange of fund basis) to
leverage existing opportunities that would enhance the validation of PACE
measurements.

A.30-15
NASA is independently directing an airborne campaign, the PACE Postlaunch Airborne
eXperiment (PACE-PAX), focused on validation of atmospheric and some
oceanographic parameters. PACE-PAX objectives are to validate new and advanced
PACE products with a focus on measurements that can be made uniquely by aircraft. It
will be conducted in September of 2024 in California with two aircraft: a high-altitude
platform with remote sensing and PACE proxy instruments, and a low altitude aircraft
making in situ measurements of aerosols and clouds. A white paper describing the
campaign and a Validation Traceability Matrix (VTM), which guided its design, are
available on the PACE website. Proposers to this program element may be asked post-
selection to coordinate and/or support the airborne campaign, as appropriate.
7. The Two-Step Proposal Submission Process
To facilitate the early recruitment of conflict-free reviewers, this program element will
use a two-step proposal submission process in which the Notice of Intent (NOI) is
replaced by a mandatory Step-1 proposal submitted by the proposing organization,
rather than the PI. A general introduction to the two-step process appears in in Section
IV(b)(vii) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, but detailed instructions to proposers
are given in the "Instructions for Submitting a Step-1 Proposal" found under "Other
Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
7.1 Step-1 Proposal
The Step-1 proposal is essentially a required Notice of Intent (NOI) that must be
submitted electronically by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR), as
opposed to an NOI which may submitted by the PI alone. The body of the Step-1
proposal is a summary briefly describing the proposed work. The proposal summary is
entered directly into a mandatory 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on the
NSPIRES web interface cover pages. No PDF attachment is permitted for a Step-1
proposal submission. No budget is requested for the Step-1 proposal. The Step-1
proposal must identify the PI and all funded Co-Is on the proposal. These team
members are added to the Step-1 proposal through NSPIRES, just like any other
ROSES proposal. Team members will be carried through to the Step-2 proposal by
default, but some changes to the team are permitted.
Step-1 proposals will not be subjected to peer review. The purposes of the Step-1
proposal are to: 1) to ensure proposers are adequately addressing the requirements of
the program element, 2) survey proposers regarding instruments needed during the
PVST so that NASA may ensure adequate calibrated instruments are available to
awardees, and 3) get a general outline of the proposed work to start recruitment of the
review panel while avoiding conflict of interest and appearance of bias. Thus, proposers
are strongly encouraged to add team members at the stage of the Step-1 proposal (see
Subsection 7.2.1). No individual responses will be provided to proposers regarding the
content of the Step-1 proposal, but an encourage/discourage notice will be issued to all
who submitted a Step-1 proposal after internal review, based on the extent to which the
proposers are adequately addressing the requirements of the program element.

A.30-16
7.2 Step-2 Proposal
Only those who have previously submitted a Step-1 proposal can submit a Step-2
proposal. Proposers will receive a notification via NSPIRES whether their proposal has
been “encouraged” or “discouraged” and to inform them when the Step-2 response
structure is opened on the NSPIRES web page and thus Step-2 proposals can be
created and submitted. All proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to
submit a Step-2 proposal, regardless of whether their proposal was encouraged or
discouraged. Submission of the Step-1 proposal does not obligate the proposer to
submit a Step-2 (full) proposal later. The content of the Step-2 proposal is given in
Section 5.
Proposers should refer to the PDF document entitled "How to submit a Step-2 proposal"
under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element. The process
for preparation and submission of the Step-2 (full) proposal is essentially identical to
that associated with any other ROSES proposal.
7.2.1 Additions to the team between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposal
Team members who were listed on the Step-1 proposal may be omitted from the Step-2
proposal. However, the addition of any kind of investigator (funded or unfunded) to the
Step-2 proposal is only permitted if proposers notify the NASA point of contact listed in
Section 10 via email (with a cc to sara@nasa.gov) at least four weeks in advance of the
Step-2 proposal due date. The addition of investigators within four weeks of the Step-2
proposal due date requires explicit permission from the NASA point of contact listed in
Section 10.
8. Evaluation Criteria
Step-2 proposals will be evaluated according to the three default criteria (Merit,
Relevance, and Cost) defined in Appendix D the 2022 NASA Guidebook to Proposers
and applied as described in Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
In addition to the factors given in the guidebook and ROSES:
• The standard assessment of qualifications, capabilities, and expertise of key
personnel and adequacy of facilities will include field sampling skills.
• The standard assessment of past performance focus on the proposed
measurement area(s) and data sharing.
• The evaluation of relevance will include the degree to which the proposed
validation activities fulfill the required or advanced measurement requirements for
the mission, and the degree to which the proposers demonstrate understanding of
the PACE mission objectives and the functions and needs of the validation.
9. Additional information
9.1 Informational Webex Meeting
NASA will hold a Webex meeting for potential proposers to this program element in
early December. Connect information will be posted under 'Other Documents' on the
NSPIRES page for this program element by November 30, 2022.

A.30-17
9.2 Award information
NASA reserves the right to select all, some, or none of the proposals submitted in
response to this Announcement.
Awards to non-governmental organizations will be made as cooperative agreements
rather than grants, consistent with the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Manual. NASA’s contributions will include the government provided instruments
(described in Sections 4.2 and 7.1), necessary coordination (e.g., of efforts such as
coordination of the collection of in situ field data and collective validation) and support
via the various teams (e.g., PACE Validation Science Team, the Project Science Team,
PVST Project Office (see Section 4.5.1), the PACE-PAX team (see Section 6.3), the
PACE System Vicarious Calibration teams, and the PACE Science and Applications
Team and, of course, delivery of PACE data.
Any funds to Co-Is at government labs will be sent directly to those organizations.
Failure to submit data to SeaBASS and the PACE Project in compliance with the data
latency requirements of this program element will jeopardize proposed project
continuation.
10. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for new ~ $12M Total
awards

Number of awards anticipated ~ 8-12

Maximum duration of awards 4 years

Due date for Step-1 Proposals
Due date for Step-2 proposals
Planning date for start of investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of Step-2 proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
preparation and submission of
proposals
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
October 2023
15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
See Section 5, A.1 the Earth Science
Research Program Overview, and Section IV
and Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.

A.30-18
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available
at support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-PACE
Laura Lorenzoni
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0917
Email: laura.lorenzoni@nasa.gov
A.30-19
A.31 THE SCIENCE OF TERRA, AQUA, AND SUOMI NPP
U

NOTICE: The Science of Terra, Aqua, and Suomi NPP will not be
solicited in ROSES this year. It is anticipated that this program
element will next be solicited in ROSES-2023.
1. U Scope of Program
NASA's Earth Science Research Program aims to utilize global measurements to
understand the Earth system and interactions among its components as steps toward
prediction of Earth system behavior. To achieve this goal, a combination of shorter-term
process-oriented measurements is complemented by longer-term satellite
measurements of certain environmental properties. A key requirement for the latter is
the provision of well-calibrated, multi-year and multi-satellite data and product series.
The Earth Observing System (EOS) was intended to provide global observations
needed to advance Earth System Science and to initiate a number of improved long-
term global data sets. NASA has completed the development and implementation of the
EOS satellites, and successfully operates a comprehensive EOS Data and Information
System (EOSDIS) to acquire, process, archive, and distribute these observations and
data products ( https://earthdata.nasa.gov/about ). Among the EOS satellites that were
28TU U28T

most critical in initiating new, high quality long-term Earth system data records were the
Terra and Aqua satellites, launched in 1999 and 2002, respectively.
The Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP, formerly the NPOESS
Preparatory Project) satellite was launched on October 28, 2011, to extend more than
30 high-quality time series data records initiated by earlier NASA satellites (most
notably Terra and Aqua, but also Aura, launched in 2004). Its observations should allow
scientists to extend a continuous record of satellite data of sufficient quality to detect
and quantify global environmental changes. For example, Suomi NPP continues
measurements of land surface vegetation, sea surface temperature, and atmospheric
ozone that began more than 25 years ago with earlier satellites and which were
enhanced with the new instrumentation aboard the EOS satellites. The NASA time
series of global observations is continued for certain data records by the on-orbit Suomi
NPP and NOAA-20 program sensors ( https://earthdata.nasa.gov/eosdis/science-
28T

system-description/eosdis-standard-products ). 28T

Suomi NPP serves as a bridge between NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) of
satellites and the next-generation Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), a National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) program that will collect data for both
weather and climate. NASA is bridging the mission capabilities to continue a set of the
Earth System Data Records begun with the EOS missions using the Suomi NPP
mission data.
2. Point of Contact
Barry Lefer
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001

A.31-1
Email: barry.lefer@nasa.gov
28T 28T

Telephone: 202-358-3857

A.31-2
A.32 STUDIES WITH ICESAT-2
NOTICE: Added May 20, 2022. Two Virtual Town Hall meetings to
discuss the implementation of dual-anonymous peer review will be
held June 15 and September 12, 2022. See Section 6.1 for details.
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-
anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared according
to the guidelines in Section 6 and in the associated "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element.
Proposers must use Earth Science division templates from the SARA
webpage for the required Summary Table of Work Effort and Current
and Pending Support sections of the proposal.
There is no plan to solicit Studies with ICESat-2 in ROSES-2023. PIs
currently funded through awards based on prior ROSES proposals
should submit potential new proposals to this opportunity. The start
date will be adjusted accordingly if selected.
1. Overview
NASA solicits proposals for Earth science research using observations from the Ice,
Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2), which was launched on September 15,
2018. The Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System (ATLAS) instrument on
ICESat-2 is the most advanced, highest-resolution altimetry instrument ever placed in
Earth orbit. ATLAS is a photon-counting lidar with six beams and ICESat-2's near-polar
orbit is optimized to enable it to characterize elevation changes in Earth’s polar ice. The
mission collects measurements globally – away from the poles – particularly to enable
independent determination of vegetation height, but also to support research in
hydrology, oceanography, atmospheric sciences, and other Earth and applied sciences.
Given the exciting scientific opportunities presented by the mission's unprecedented
volume of high-resolution Earth observations, for proposers to this program element
NASA requires Open Science approaches to accelerate the pace of scientific
advancement. NASA also encourages researchers to utilize emerging methods in
scientific data analysis, including but not limited to: machine learning, cloud-based
processing, and integration of ICESat-2 results with advanced Earth system models.
Principal Investigators (PI) of the proposals selected under this program have additional
responsibilities as members of the ICESat-2 Science Team (I2ST).
2. Scope of Program
This program element solicits proposals to pursue any research topic using ICESat-2
observations and advancing the Earth Science goals articulated in the NASA 2018
Strategic Plan and 2020 SCIENCE 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence (both
of which may be found at http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy/).
Two categories of proposals are solicited. ICESat-2 data need to be central for either
category:
(a) Investigations that are using ICESat-2 data to address major needs, gaps or
uncertainties in knowledge in Earth Science and especially cryospheric science as

A.32-1
 identified, for example, by the latest IPCC report https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/,
the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/, or the IARPC Arctic Research Plan
https://www.iarpccollaborations.org/arctic-research-plan-2022-2026.html.
(b) Investigations of exploratory nature. Efforts that aim to extract novel information from
ICESat-2 data or are using ICESat-2 to investigate parts of the Earth System in a new
way are especially encouraged.
Overall priority will be given to investigations focused on land and sea ice in the Earth's
polar regions. Other areas of Earth science research will be considered at a lower priority,
but NASA anticipates supporting several such investigations.
3. ICESat-2 Data Products and Cloud-based Resources
To facilitate research with ICESat-2, geophysical algorithms and data products
(https://icesat-2.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/data-products/) have been developed to support
a range of users, from those requiring base telemetry through to modelers requiring
gridded data. Included among these are fifteen separate science-specific products -
ATL06 to ATL21 - covering land and sea ice, vegetation and ecosystem structure,
inland water height, sea surface topography, and various aspects of the atmosphere. All
ICESat-2 data can be accessed from the NASA Distributed Active Archive Center
(DAAC) at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at
http://nsidc.org/data/icesat-2/.
Because of the high data volume of some of the data products, moving, processing, and
analyzing such volumes of data are challenging. Cloud-based computing may offer
critical efficiencies to proposed investigations and should be considered. To facilitate
such work, NASA's Advanced Data Analytics Platform (ADAPT)
(https://www.nccs.nasa.gov/services/adapt) will be made available to investigations
selected under this element. ADAPT offers cloud storage and access to high-
performance computing resources. To minimize data movement, ADAPT hosts all
ICESat-2 data products (https://icesat-2.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/data-products), as well
as related satellite and aircraft altimetry products, including data from ICESat and
IceBridge. Proposers who would like to use ADAPT are encouraged to incorporate it in
their proposed work plans.
4. Proposal Requirements
Proposers are encouraged to address each of the following three sections (4.1-4.3)
separately in their proposals.
4.1 ICESat-2 Science Team: Membership, Meetings, and Team Leader
In addition to their proposed research activities, Principal Investigators (PI) selected under
this program have additional responsibilities as members of the ICESat-2 Science Team
(I2ST). The team will:
• Represent ICESat-2 at meetings and conferences, and provide the liaison with the
broader discipline science and applications communities;
• Report to NASA Headquarters on the impacts to ICESat-2 science resulting from
any changes with mission operations;

A.32-2
 • Provide guidance to the ICESat-2 Project Office for mission planning, as
requested.
4.1.1 Meetings
There will be at least two in-person, 3-day meetings of I2ST each year in varying
locations within the United States. Virtual or hybrid meetings are an option. These team
meetings will be open and other members of the proposer’s team will be welcome to
attend and participate. Proposers should include support in their proposal budget for
themselves and critical team members to attend these meetings. Traditionally one
meeting will be at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center while the other is hosted by a
Science Team member.
4.1.2 Team Leader
The I2ST will be led by a Team Leader who will organize the team meetings, support
the Project Science Office, report to NASA Headquarters, and be responsible for
producing a yearly team report. Proposers wishing to serve as Team Leader must state
so in their proposal and are allowed up to two additional pages to describe interest,
philosophy and approach to lead the team, and thoughts on facilitating Open Science.
These two additional pages must be set aside as a separate section in the non-
anonymized Appendix of the proposal and appropriately titled.
Specifically the statement needs to address the following aspects of team leadership:
• The scientific qualifications and leadership skills of the proposing Team Leader;
• A clear articulation of the proposed Team Leader’s vision for the Team, how it
can function as a "cohort" for the mutual benefit of the selected investigators, and
its contribution to NASA’s Earth Science research goals; and
• A management plan that describes the approach to science team leadership,
how interactions with the Team and NASA management will be conducted, and
how science team business and meetings will be organized and conducted.
Team Leader activities should not be included in the proposal budget. The Team leader
will receive an additional $50,000 per year to support his/her leader activities, and the
successful proposer will revise the budget during final award negotiations.
The Team Lead will be evaluated separately from the Science/Technical/Management
part of the proposal. Selection to the Science Team is not a requirement for the Team
Lead selection.
4.2 Open Science and Open Source Science
This program element requires proposers to implement Open Science (OS) approaches
consistent with the recommendations of the report Open Science by Design: Realizing a
Vision for 21st Century Research from the National Academies of Science, Engineering
and Medicine (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25116/open-science-by-design-realizing-
avision-for-21st-century ). Awards made under this program element must follow
NASA's Earth Science Data Systems (ESDS) Open Source Software Policy
(https://earthdata.nasa.gov/collaborate/open-data-services-and-software ). Some key
recommendations from the report that are particularly relevant to research using
ICESat-2 include but are not limited to:

A.32-3
 • Developing proposals using Findable-Accessible-Interoperable-Reusable (FAIR)
principles;
• Conducting research using tools compatible with open sharing;
• Preparing data and tools for reproducibility;
• Documenting approaches in electronic research notebooks; and
• Depositing research output in FAIR archives.
NASA recognizes that fully implementing OS approaches will be challenging and entail
additional cost. However, NASA sees great benefit to these approaches for accelerating
ICESat-2 research, and proposers are required to include OS in their work plans to
achieve the following goals:
• Progress is accelerated to the maximum extent possible by sharing advances
during the conduct of investigations, not just at the publication stage. This
sharing
o Includes scientific results and analytic approaches to ICESat-2 observations,
o Occurs within and across science disciplines, and
o Happens openly and frequently via team meetings, contributions to open
repositories, and other communications with colleagues.
• Workflows are documented to facilitate sharing of advances and validating
results by using open-source digital notebooks, regular updates to appropriate
open code repositories, and ensuring critical ancillary data sets are available.
• Crediting individuals making similar pre-publication contributions wherever
possible.
4.3 Data Policies
Proposals developing significant datasets must include in the data management plan a
clear description of the dataset development, including delivery to the NASA DAAC at
the National Snow and Ice Data Center (https://nsidc.org/daac) in compliance with
NASA data standards (https://earthdata.nasa.gov).
5. Fieldwork and Aircraft
This program element will not support major field deployments. Small field programs
may be considered, but proposers should review and consider the estimated budget in
Section 7, the Summary of Key Information, when scoping such plans. Proposed
investigations involving fieldwork must describe the field activities in the body of the
proposal and include the full costs to NASA within the proposal budget. Proposed
investigations that would utilize logistics support provided by the National Science
Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs must follow the instructions in their current Arctic
and Antarctic research solicitations
(https://www.nsf.gov/funding/programs.jsp?org=OPP) for planning fieldwork and
estimating costs. For Arctic fieldwork, this includes obtaining and submitting a separate
cost estimate document to be uploaded with the proposal budget. Investigators
proposing activities involving aircraft must contact Mr. Bruce Tagg
(Bruce.Tagg@nasa.gov), SMD's Airborne Science Program Manager, during proposal
preparation to discuss aircraft selection and budgeting.

A.32-4
6. Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members
on the review panel, but the reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal
teams during the scientific evaluation of the proposal. The overarching objective of dual-
anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit of a
proposal.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for
this program element that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-
anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and 2) proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
identifying information.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their merit, without taking
into account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after the
evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the "Expertise
and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The panel will assess the qualifications
of the team in order to allow the reviewers to assess the team capabilities required to
execute a given proposed science investigation.
Work Effort and Funding Support for PIs and Co-Is must be documented using the
templates available on the SARA webpage.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the "Guidelines
for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.

A.32-5
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.
6.1 Virtual DAPR Town Hall Meetings [Added May 20, 2022]
NASA will host two virtual town hall meetings to discuss the implementation of
dual-anonymous peer review (DAPR) for this program element. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review for general
information about DAPR. One town hall will be held on Wednesday June 15 at 12
pm Eastern Time, and a second town hall being held on Monday September 12 at
3pm Eastern Time. A recording of one of the town halls and slides will be
provided online prior to the proposal deadline.

A.32-6
The town halls will: (1) discuss the motivation for switching to dual-anonymous
peer review, (2) explain how dual-anonymous peer reviews work, and (3) describe
how to write proposals that are compatible with dual-anonymous peer review.
Attendees will have the opportunity to anonymously ask questions to the
panelists. Attendance at the town hall will be anonymous and your name will not
be visible to other attendees. In advance of (and during) each town hall,
questions may be submitted anonymously and upvoted
at: https://nasa.cnf.io/sessions/hyb3/#!/dashboard.
The connection information for each Webex Event is listed below.
6.1.1 June 15, 2022 Town Hall Information
Wednesday, Jun 15, 2022, 12:00 pm Eastern Time
Join link:
https://nasaevents.webex.com/nasaevents/j.php?MTID=m99a99edb92c72e45db01
9ae1b1a29b0b
Webinar number: 2763 057 4749
Webinar password: fuE5HK3yQh8 (38354539 from phones)
Join by phone
+1-415-527-5035 United States Toll
+1-312-500-3163 United States Toll (Chicago)
Access code: 276 305 74749
6.1.2 September 12 Town Hall Information
Monday, September 12, 2022 3:00 pm Eastern Time
Join link:
https://nasaevents.webex.com/nasaevents/j.php?MTID=m4c64b6b876dec07b95cb
581186414a97
Webinar number:2764 652 2213
Webinar password: TJhQ8c4s5pJ (85478247 from phones)
Join by phone
+1-415-527-5035 United States Toll
+1-312-500-3163 United States Toll (Chicago)
Access code: 276 465 22213
7. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~$5 M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~25
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.

A.32-7
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
6 months after proposal due date
(For PIs funded under prior ROSES, start
dates should be according to their current
period of performance.)
15 pp; an additional 2 pages is allotted for the
team lead in the Not Anonymized Expertise
and Resources document, see subsection
4.1.2. See also Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation.
This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See the NSPIRES Online Help page, Sections
3.22-4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ICESAT2
Thorsten Markus
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Astronautics
Administration
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546
Telephone: (202) 358-3860
Email: thorsten.markus@nasa.gov
A.32-8
A.33 ECOSTRESS SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS TEAM
NOTICE: Corrected February 18, 2022. The previously omitted phone
number for Keith Gaddis has been added. New text is in bold.
1. Scope of Program
NASA launched the ECOsystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Experiment on
Space Station (ECOSTRESS) instrument to the International Space Station (ISS) on
June 29, 2018. In 2019, NASA selected the initial members of the ECOSTRESS
Science and Applications Team to develop research and applications products with
ECOSTRESS data (please see this link for a list of the 15 initial Team members
selected by NASA in 2019 and their proposal abstracts).
This program element solicits proposals for membership in the second round of the
ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team. This team continues to support basic
research and analysis activities as well as applications activities associated with the
production, validation, and utilization of ECOSTRESS data products.
NASA selected the ECOSTRESS instrument through the Earth Venture Instrument-2
solicitation in July 2014. ECOSTRESS is a multispectral thermal radiometer acquiring
coincident thermal infrared (TIR) emission measurements of the Earth’s surface in five
separate spectral bands, covering the 8-to-12.5 micron (μm) wavelength range. Since
May 15th, 2019, ECOSTRESS data were acquired for just three of these bands (8.78
μm, 10.49 μm, and 12.09 μm). ECOSTRESS measures the brightness temperature of
the Earth’s surface with an accuracy of 1 Kelvin (K) and a precision of 0.3 K at 300 K.
The mission acquires brightness temperatures at a ground sampling distance of
approximately 40 m by 70 m over a continuous ground swath width of 360 km, from the
385 to 415 km ISS altitude range. The ISS precessing orbit (orbital inclination of 51.5
degrees) does not allow observations over high-latitude regions but does have the
advantage of enabling measurements at different times of the diurnal cycle, with
coverage every few days depending on latitude. The planned ECOSTRESS end of
mission is September 2023. Data collection plans originally included the entire CONUS,
twelve 1,000x1,000 km areas in key climate zones, and multiple Fluxnet sites. In March
2020, this coverage was extended to include all of the ECOSTRESS imagery captured
by the sensor across the globe within the orbital limits of the ISS.
The ECOSTRESS website at https://ecostress.jpl.nasa.gov provides additional
information about the mission, including a map of ECOSTRESS data currently available
through https://ecostress.jpl.nasa.gov/gmap/.
A key ECOSTRESS measurement is evapotranspiration (ET), derived from the TIR
brightness temperatures of plants. ET is a key climate and ecosystem variable, as it
integrates life with the water, carbon, and energy cycles—incorporating elements of the
sun, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. ECOSTRESS’s diurnal sampling
captures the shape of the daily ET cycling as plants open and close their stomata over
the course of a day.
ECOSTRESS addresses scientific and management-oriented questions about plant-
water dynamics and how ecosystems respond to climate variability and change. The
ECOSTRESS science objectives are to:

A.33-1
 1. Identify critical thresholds of water use and water stress in key climate-sensitive
biomes;
2. Detect the timing, location, and predictive factors leading to plant-water uptake
decline and/or cessation over the diurnal cycle; and,
3. Measure agricultural water consumptive use over CONUS at spatiotemporal
scales applicable to improve drought estimation accuracy.
ECOSTRESS data products include:
Level 0 Raw Collected Telemetry
Level 1 Calibrated Geolocated Radiances
Level 2 Surface Temperature and Emissivity
Level 3 Evapotranspiration
Level 4 Water Use Efficiency and Evaporative Stress Index
All products are now publicly available through: LP.DAAC and EarthData. Median
latency for processing is 12 hours.
2. Science and Applications Team for the ECOSTRESS Mission
This program element seeks proposals for membership on the ECOSTRESS Science
and Applications Team under the leadership of the ECOSTRESS Principal Investigator.
Proposals should focus on utilization of ECOSTRESS Level 2 (Surface Temperature
and Emissivity), Level 3 (Evapotranspiration), and/or Level 4 (Water Use Efficiency and
Evaporative Stress Index) data products for basic research of importance to Earth
system science and applications relevant to management activities. The program
element is also open to production of new higher-level (Levels 3 and 4) data products.
NASA particularly encourages proposals in the following areas:
• Efforts that advance the three ECOSTRESS science objectives;
• Evaluation and improvement of existing ECOSTRESS data products;
• New research and innovative analyses using ECOSTRESS data products alone
or in combination with data products from other sensors (e.g., those from NASA,
other U.S. entities, or international providers) that advance the understanding of
the climate system, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, ecosystems and their
biodiversity, and/or extreme weather events;
• Applications of ECOSTRESS products alone or in combination with data
products from other sensors (e.g., those from NASA, other U.S. entities, or
international providers) for agriculture, water management, disaster response
and mitigation, public health, managing ecosystems for conservation and more
sustainable resource use, and the forecasting of weather and extreme events;
and
• Enhanced validation strategies, techniques, and data products.
Please note that any proposers responding to this program element who are already
funded by ECOSTRESS must explain in their new proposal how the new proposed work
goes beyond and is distinct from the work for which they are already funded.

A.33-2
3. Science and Applications Team Meeting
All proposers should budget for one two-day annual Science and Applications Team
Meeting to be held on the West Coast of the U.S. each year (for costing purposes,
assume the meeting will take place in the Los Angeles, CA area). In consultation with
the Headquarters program scientist for ECOSTRESS, the ECOSTRESS Principal
Investigator will be responsible for calling and organizing science team meetings and
related activities.
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget for $1 M per year
each year of new awards
Number of awards ~5-10
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of investigation Assume 6 months after receipt of
proposals.
Page limit for the central Science- 15 pages; see also Table 1 of ROSES
Technical-Management section of and NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Earth
science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
General information and overview of this See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
solicitation
General requirements for content of See A.1 the Earth Science Research
proposals Program Overview, and Section IV and
Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Detailed instructions for the submission See the NSPIRES Online Help page,
of proposals Sections 3.22-4.4 of the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers and Section IV(b) of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is
required; no hard copy is permitted.
Web site for submission of proposal via http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
NSPIRES available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376).
Web site for submission of proposal via http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
Grants.gov support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726).
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package NNH22ZDA001N-ESAT
from Grants.gov

A.33-3
Point of contact for this program
[Corrected February 18, 2022]
Keith Gaddis
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-4651
Email: keith.gaddis@nasa.gov

A.33-4
A.34 NEW (EARLY CAREER) INVESTIGATOR PROGRAM IN EARTH SCIENCE
U

NOTICE: The New (Early Career) Investigator Program in Earth

Science will not be competed in 2022. It has moved to a 3-year cycle
and is scheduled to solicit proposals next in ROSES-2023. Note that
eligibility requirements can change between solicitations. The full text
of the most recent call can be found in A.32 of ROSES-2020 .
28TU U28T

1. Scope of Program
The New (Early Career) Investigator Program in Earth science is designed to support
outstanding scientific research and career development of scientists and engineers at
the early stage of their professional careers. The program welcomes innovative
research initiatives and seeks to cultivate diverse scientific leadership in Earth system
science. The Earth Science Division (ESD) places particular emphasis on the
investigators' ability to promote and increase the use of space-based remote sensing
through the proposed research. Proposals with objectives connected to needs identified
in most recent Decadal Survey Thriving on our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for
28T

Earth Observation from Space are welcomed.

28T

The program supports all aspects of scientific and technological research aimed to
advance NASA's mission in Earth system science (See the Science Plan at
http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy/ ). In research and analysis, the focus
28T 28T

areas are:
• Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems,
• Climate Variability and Change,
• Water and Energy Cycle,
• Atmospheric Composition,
• Weather, and
• Earth Surface and Interior.
In applied sciences, the ESD encourages the use of data from NASA’s Earth-observing
satellites and airborne missions to tackle tough challenges and develop solutions that
improve our daily lives. Specific areas of interest include efforts that help institutions and
individuals make better decisions about our environment, food, water, health, and safety
(see http://appliedsciences.nasa.gov ). In technological research, the ESD aims to
28T 28T

foster the creation and infusion of new technologies – such as data processing,
interoperability, visualization, and analysis as well as autonomy, modeling, and mission
architecture design – in order to enable new scientific measurements of the Earth
system or reduce the cost of current observations (see http://esto.nasa.gov ). The ESD
28T 28T

also promotes innovative development in computing and information science and

engineering of direct relevance to ESD. See A.1, the Earth Science Research Overview,
for more detailed descriptions of the focus areas, themes in applied sciences, and
related research topics of high priority to the ESD.
2. Point of contact concerning this program
Allison Leidner
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate

A.34-1
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-358-0855
Email: Allison.K.Leidner@nasa.gov
28T 28T

A.34-2
A.35 EARTH SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: WATER RESOURCES
NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in
ROSES this year. This program is tentatively scheduled to next solicit
proposals in ROSES-2024.
1. Objectives
Within the NASA Earth Science Division, the Applied Sciences Program solicits
proposals that develop and integrate NASA and other Earth science data and models
into water resource management applications and decision support tools that can be
sustained by operational partners or stakeholders. Remote sensing data, in combination
with hydrologic models, can provide important information to assist water resource
managers working with a wide range of partners and stakeholders. In order to make the
best decisions possible and develop strategies that enhance the security and
sustainability of water supplies, water resource managers and their stakeholders need
timely information on water quality, supply, and demand.
The goal of this program element is to nurture the development of applications in water
resources management at various stages of the applied research process including
proving the application concept, validating and demonstrating the concept in a relevant
decision-making environment, and full transition of the application to the partner for
operational use. Innovative solutions are sought that support an integrated approach by
synergistically combining Earth observations, modeling, and existing in situ/partner data
sets to address specific, well-defined information needs for water resources
management.
2. Point of Contact
Bradley Doorn
Applied Sciences Program
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-2187
Email: Bradley.Doorn@nasa.gov

A.35-1
A.36 EARTH SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: AGRICULTURE
NOTICE: April 8, 2022. The due date for Notices of Intent (NOIs) has
been delayed. NOIs are now requested by May 5, 2022. Proposals are
still due June 17, 2022.
Amended March 11, 2022. This amendment releases the final text and
due dates for this program element, which had been listed as "TBD".
Notices of Intent are requested by April, 8 2022, and proposals are
due June, 17 2022. Proposals to this program element must include
two sections outside of the 20-page S/T/M Section: a 2-page schedule
and milestones section and a 2-page data management plan. See
Sections 5.2 and 5.5.
1. Overview
The NASA Earth Science Division (ESD) solicits proposals to develop, implement, and
manage a program of activities to advance Earth science applications with U.S.
domestic agriculture. Earth science applications refers to the use of Earth science
information to inform decision making and support actions of organizations for policy,
business, and management activities. This definition is consistent with the 2018 Earth
Decadal Survey (p.169); https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24938/. The ESD Applied
Sciences Program (hereinafter called ASP) manages an Agriculture applications area
and this call for proposals.
The primary objective of the Agriculture applications area is to enable and advance the
adoption of uses of Earth science information by domestic and international
organizations to benefit agriculture and related food security challenges. This
application area includes application development, user characterization and
engagement, innovative communications work, and socioeconomic impact analyses as
part of the activities.
With this program element, ASP is calling for proposals that address and enhance U.S.
domestic agriculture only. International and global agriculture applied research are
addressed by on-going activities under the NASA Harvest Consortium
(https://nasaharvest.org/) and other ASP Agriculture activities. ASP strongly encourages
that proposals to this program element involve a multisectoral, transdisciplinary team of
organizations as a consortium1 with a strong program management approach, plan,
and capabilities to achieve the objectives. A cooperative agreement funding vehicle is
planned for the selected proposal.
Section 2 provides background information. Section 3 describes the purpose,
objectives, and scope. Section 4 explains eligibility, and Section 5 describes the
proposal format and contents. Section 6 articulates the evaluation criteria, and Section 7
provides funding and award information. Section 8 explains the award reporting
requirements. Section 9 provides a summary table of key information.

1
For the purposes of this program element, a consortium means an association, group, or combination of
organizations formed to engage in and undertake a joint venture beyond the skills, capabilities, and resources of any
one member.

A.36-1
2. Background Information
2.1 NASA Earth Science and Applied Sciences Program
Using the vantage point from space, ESD builds fundamental knowledge of how the
Earth works and how it is changing. ESD advances understanding of the planet as an
integrated system and develops and tests applications that deliver direct societal
benefit. ESD is organized around key programmatic areas: flight, research, applied
sciences, data systems, and technology. Together these areas include programs and
projects that are responsible for: conducting and sponsoring research to advance
scientific understanding of Earth as a system, collecting and disseminating new
observations, developing new technologies and computational models, and developing
applications of Earth science information.
ASP promotes efforts to discover and demonstrate innovative and practical uses of
Earth science information2. ASP supports applied science research and applications
projects and activities to enable uses of Earth science information that inform
organizations’3 decisions and resulting actions, that identify and promote societal
benefits from Earth science information, and that build key capabilities in the Earth
science community and broader workforce. All projects and activities are carried out in
partnership with private and public-sector organizations to achieve sustained uses of,
and benefits from, Earth science information. For more information, visit the Applied
Sciences Program website at http://AppliedSciences.NASA.gov/.
ASP has three primary lines of business: Applications, Capacity Building, and Satellite
Mission Engagement. Agriculture is one of seven current applications areas (learn more
about the Agriculture application area at https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/what-we-
do/food-security-agriculture).4 The Capacity Building program element improves the
ability of individuals and institutions in the United States and abroad to access and
apply Earth science information, including efforts to advance equity and environmental
justice. Under Satellite Mission Engagement, ASP supports efforts to involve
applications-oriented users in the planning for future satellite missions to identify and
anticipate applications. The awardee may interact with some to all elements within ASP.
Note: This program element is for proposals addressing domestic agriculture
applications and applied research. Proposals that aim to target fundamental Earth
science research will be considered noncompliant. For such pursuits, the reader is
referred to other ROSES-2022 Earth Science program elements or future ROSES
program elements.

2
ASP considers that Earth science information broadly includes a range of products and capabilities: Earth-
observing satellite measurements (NASA, other U.S. agencies, foreign, and commercial), data, and derived
information products; outputs and predictive capabilities from Earth science models; algorithms; visualizations;
knowledge about the Earth system, and other geospatial products.
3
Examples include Government agencies, companies, regional associations, international organizations,
multinational financial institutions, philanthropic institutions, tribal organizations, and not-for-profit organizations.
4
The seven Applications areas are: Agriculture, Climate & Resilience, Disasters, Ecological Forecasting, Health &
Air Quality, Water Resources, and Wildfires.

A.36-2
2.2 Agriculture
NASA recognizes that addressing the Nation’s agriculture challenges is a major societal
need for the coming decades. A growing population, increased demand for water and
energy, a changing climate, and other factors have contributed to expanded concerns
centered on food supply, production, resiliency, price volatility, and vulnerability. As
such, there are opportunities to link environmental observations with social and
economic data to generate information and provide insights to improve assessments
and agricultural practices.
The agriculture system involves production and distribution with multiple stages in
supply chains. The agriculture challenge can be described through the lens of food
security, defined within the dimensions of availability, access, and utilization. Other
definitions of the agriculture challenge focus on processes, such as growing/production,
processing, and transporting, noting that changes in trade, economics, geopolitics (e.g.
global pandemics), preferences, and human behaviors have transformed the food
system. The ASP Agriculture area considers both perspectives as equally valid. The
current and expected impacts from a changing climate will also contribute to changes,
reactions, and adaptations in the agriculture system.
Earth observations and Earth science data, models, and knowledge provide essential
information and tools to support the functioning and resilience of the Nation’s
agriculture. For example, Earth science information has proven helpful with crop area
estimates, cropping intensities, agricultural productivity assessments, water planning
and irrigation management, and crop yield modeling on a range of time scales.
Formed in 2017, the NASA Harvest Consortium will continue to manage a program of
activities focused on Earth science applications and applied research for international
activities, such as work being performed at the country level outside of the United
States, and global agriculture systems that transcend geopolitical boundaries. For
global activities, NASA Harvest and the domestic agriculture consortium selected from
this program element will coordinate efforts as appropriate (see Figure 1 below and
Section 3 for more information).

Figure 1: Placement of the new domestic agriculture consortium within the Applied
Sciences Program Structure.

A.36-3
3. Eligibility
All types of organizations are eligible to apply, such as private sector, nonprofits,
foundations, and academia. NASA encourages a non-Federal organization to lead the
consortium. Proposals may include civil servants and personnel of Federal Government
agencies, but no NASA funds may be used to support Federal civil servants and
personnel other than those from NASA. NASA civil servants and personnel based at
NASA Centers are eligible to receive funds and be part of a consortium.
Multiorganizational teams that include different sectors (commercial, public, nonprofit,
academic, etc.) and different disciplines (agronomy, economics, remote sensing, etc.)
are strongly encouraged. A person or organization can be involved in and included on
more than one proposal. NASA places no restrictions on the number of proposals in
which a person or organization can be involved and included.
Proposals involving private sector organizations and/or proprietary products and
services are strongly encouraged to read the NASA guidelines on cooperative
agreements in the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Manual.
4. Solicited Work
This section provides detailed information for this specific ROSES program element.
Section 4.1 describes the purpose and objectives. Section 4.2 explains the scope of
work of this program element. Section 4.3 provides suggestions to consider in preparing
a proposal.
4.1 Purpose and Objectives
This program element solicits proposals for a program management capability that
increases and enables sustained uses of Earth science information for the
advancement of domestic agricultural practices in public and private organizations for
economic and social benefits. There is a strong preference for private sector, including
commercial and nonprofit.
ASP will select one proposal team to lead, develop, implement, and manage a
consortium of experts and organizations for domestic agriculture applications
development and uptake. ASP expects a considerable level of interaction and
cooperation with the awardee, and, thus, it plans to pursue a cooperative agreement as
the award instrument. The awardee will also coordinate with NASA’s existing agriculture
and food security focused efforts, including NASA Harvest, to ensure all aspects of the
Agriculture application area (domestic, international, and global) are coordinated and
communicated.
ASP expects to achieve measurable impacts on agriculture systems and agricultural
practices through this program element. For the entire performance period, the awardee
is expected to pursue demonstrable applications, enable more organizations to use
Earth science information for the benefit of agriculture, and expand the community of
domestic stakeholders and users skilled with using Earth science for agricultural
benefits.
ASP expects the awardee to maintain a sound program management structure and plan
that facilitates the advancement of the state of practice in the application of Earth

A.36-4
science information in management, business, policy decisions, and other activities to
enhance agriculture systems and agricultural practices. The awardee will advance the
usability of data and information products that are derived from NASA Earth
observations and models. Overall, ASP seeks to increase capacity in applications of
Earth science information, demonstrate the benefits of Earth science, and induce
greater use broadly.
Key objectives include:
• Advance use of Earth science information for enhanced food systems and
agricultural practices, economic progress, resilience, and sustainability;
• Increase the adoption of Earth science applications and broaden the
organizations routinely using them to inform decisions and actions;
• Expand the number of applications developed, tested, and (if successful)
adopted across sectors, decision types, and other meaningful factors;
• Advance understanding of effective ways – both technically and
programmatically – to enable sustained applications of Earth science information;
• Enhance awareness within food security and agricultural communities of
upcoming Earth-observing satellite missions and the communities’ anticipation of
new applications;
• Advance impact assessment techniques quantifying the benefits of Earth science
information, increasing the number of examples and case studies across sectors
and decision types with food systems and agriculture;
• Identify opportunities and topics for possible investigations;
• Advance communication of the benefits of Earth science and observations to the
agriculture community.
Proposal teams must clearly demonstrate how their proposed program of activities will
address these objectives and enhance current methods employed by the agricultural
communities and their stakeholders.
As a result of this award, NASA and the Earth science community hope to enable
greater uses of Earth science information for domestic agriculture, as well as to better
articulate the return on investment from NASA Earth science. Successful activities can
expand the depth and breadth of understanding of the value of Earth science
applications within the broader space and scientific communities, agricultural
community, public and private sectors, and the public at large.
4.2 Program Element Scope
This program element is focused only on U.S. domestic agriculture which is
geographically defined as within the 50 states and territories of the United States of
America. For the purposes of this program element, agriculture production includes crop
management as well as rangeland management.
For work with domestic agricultural activities or entities, there may be a range of
familiarity with Earth observations data and information products. The scope includes
work across that range, and NASA encourages teams to present a framework by which
they propose to conduct their engagement and applications development. The scope

A.36-5
includes efforts to assess the institutional contexts affecting the adoption of the data and
information products and any improvements to decisions and practices.
Efforts can include work with intermediary organizations which supply information
products, provided that sufficient acknowledgement of the source of the original Earth
observations data is provided. Activities with domestic commercial entities can include
work at foreign locations provided the majority of the efforts overall are U.S. based.
The awarded consortium must enable the adoption and sustained uses of Earth science
information, enhancing organizations’ abilities to inform their decisions and address
challenges to agriculture practices that are difficult to address with current tools and
information. The awardee is expected to implement a program structure that engages
with user organizations to co-develop sustainable solutions that involve solid
organizational models, business plans, etc. to incorporate fiscal realism and institutional
contexts. Proposal teams must describe their experience with such activities and their
proposed approaches. These experiences can include relevant non-agriculture
activities.
This program element calls for engagement with domestic agricultural entities and
activities that will likely occur along a value chain(s) of diverse sets of organizations to
support their use of Earth science information. Activities include engagement with public
and private sector entities, such as associations, nonprofits, and relevant federal
government programs. Proposals can include engagement, applications development,
and capacity building approaches, ranging from traditional to innovative, nontraditional,
and experimental approaches. This program element seeks innovative ways to
communicate impacts and build awareness. Overall, this element must advance and
enhance agricultural practices of domestic entities.
The specifics of the scope of work is organized into the following subsections: Program
and Project Management, Methods and Approaches, Stakeholder Engagement,
Transdisciplinary Coordination, Coordination with NASA Elements, Communications,
and Indicators and Impact Assessments. See details below and see Section 5 for
information on proposal content and page limits.
4.2.1 Program and Project Management.
The scope includes work across a spectrum of risk and reward. The awarded
consortium will be expected to be flexible and agile in its leadership and management of
activities in support of applications development and partnership development. As such,
proposal teams must articulate their planned methods to assess projects/activities and
determine their continuation, enhancement, adjustment, or cancellation. NASA will
judge the achievements of a consortium on its ability to articulate (and publish) failures,
as much as on its accomplishments and successful applications. Similarly, the
consortium is expected to have strong project management practices, including
processes for project initiation, review, results communication, and close-out.
4.2.2 Applications Readiness Levels for Project Management.
Applied Sciences uses the Application Readiness Level (ARL) metric to track the state
of Earth science applications projects. More information at:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/ExpandedARLDefinitions4813.pdf.

A.36-6
The awarded consortium is expected to use the ARL scale for all applications projects
and to keep detailed records of projects and their progression. Projects will likely start at
different levels and end at different levels. Projects are expected to start at or above
ARL 2; not all projects need to achieve ARL 9. The awarded consortium will be
expected to track their projects to assess progression and document time within each
level and analyze problems encountered at each level. The awarded consortium is
expected to report routinely on the project portfolio and changes, including ARL status
for active projects (and recently closed projects).
4.2.3 Methods and Approaches
The scope includes efforts to examine experimental methods, both technical and
programmatic, to enable applications, including efforts to generate and refine ideas,
develop and test applications, and enable adoption of appropriate ones.
Experimentation with innovative programmatic methods (e.g., crowd sourcing) is
strongly encouraged and expected. Proposal teams must offer some methods in their
proposal as examples. The awardee will not be limited to pursue only the example
methods offered in the proposal; they are primarily illustrative for purposes of the panel
review.
The scope includes both direct and indirect approaches to applications development
and adoption. NASA will assess the consortium on the quality and quantity of the
applications and outcomes achieved. Direct approaches are direct funding of
applications development. Indirect approaches are leveraging of other mechanisms to
advance applications such as challenge competitions, public-private partnerships,
government agency partnerships, intra-NASA ESD partnerships, etc. Proposal teams
are encouraged to describe both direct and indirect approaches in their proposal.
4.2.4 Stakeholder Engagement.
Activities will involve significant engagement with institutions, stakeholders, and users
at multiple levels. The adoption of new data, information, and techniques by
organizations and decision makers can be affected by their sense of the value and
benefits, institutional cultures, and other factors. Thus, the scope involves efforts to
understand organizational contexts and issues that affect the willingness to accept,
adopt, and employ Earth science information. Similarly, it includes efforts to understand
the kinds of information and engagement methods that are most successful and
appropriate for particular types of organizations. For example, intergovernmental
activities provide effective networking and collaboration venues for NASA and U.S.
government agencies to work together. This information can help the Earth science
community better design activities and interventions to lower organizational barriers to
consider, adopt, and use Earth science information for applications.
The awarded consortium will be expected to conduct user/institution characterization,
value chain analyses, market research, and/or assessments of trends and preferences
to support discussions, planning, and decision making with NASA on priority directions.
Proposal teams must describe their experience with such activities (experiences can
include relevant, non-agriculture activities) and their proposed methods to implement
them for this program element. Proposers may also pursue additional studies and
analyses that might contribute to strategic, tactical, and logistical decisions for the

A.36-7
program of activities.
4.2.5 Transdisciplinary Coordination
Earth science information can inform a range of types of decisions (and resultant
actions) related to agriculture, such as planning, early warnings, and resource
allocation, among many others. The scope encompasses the full range of types of
decisions and actions. Proposal teams must present a framework by which they
propose to conduct their activities across a range.
Agriculture involves significant human systems. The proposals must explain how they
are planning to integrate social sciences, economics, decision sciences, and others into
their work to account for human dimensions, policy, business factors, etc.
ASP recognizes that it is unrealistic to expect the awarded consortium to engage all of
the numerous organizations, institutions, and programs across public and private
sectors involved in agriculture. Thus, proposal teams must articulate high-potential
engagements, as well as factors to prioritize specific organizations, institutions, and
programs with which to work.
4.2.6 Coordination with NASA Elements
It is important for the awardee to interact with appropriate NASA Earth mission science
teams, programs and activities.5 After the award is announced, the awardee and NASA
Harvest will frequently communicate to coordinate efforts and collectively work towards
the goals and objectives of the Agriculture application area. In addition, the consortium
will work with relevant NASA supported activities, programs, and researchers and
represent pertinent NASA research, capabilities, and tools. ASP expects the awardee to
attend and participate in at least two team meetings per year, and proposal teams must
budget accordingly. Participation can be virtual or proposal teams can budget for two
trips for its primary personnel to the Washington, DC area per year.
4.2.7 Communications
The scope includes significant communications and outreach as part of the program of
activities. A key focus is to highlight the advances, results, and benefits that the user
organizations achieve through the use of Earth science information (rather than just the
consortium’s successes). ASP encourages teams to consider innovative and creative
methods, visualizations, scenarios, graphic design, and other approaches as part of
their efforts to showcase results, encourage adoption, and convey benefits, value, and
innovation.
Proposal teams should consider both physical and virtual means of communications,
user engagement, and outreach. Innovative, experimental approaches are encouraged,
along with traditional ones. ASP encourages proposal teams to include skilled,
professional experts in communications and marketing as part of their consortium.
Proposals may include capacity-building activities, such as summer schools and
community workshops, among others. The awardee is expected to maintain a website

5
These are competitively-selected teams associated with Earth science missions, sensors, or measurements, such as
the SMAP Science Team, MODIS/VIIRS Science Team and others.

A.36-8
and social media presence.
4.2.8 Indicators and Socioeconomic Assessments
ASP is interested in assessing and tracking advances in knowledge of, and capacity
with, Earth science information and applications. Thus, proposals must articulate
activities for the development, testing, application, and refinement of indicators to
evaluate and communicate progress in advancing the objectives, especially as
attributable to the proposed program of activities.
The proposal must include assessments of the value and benefits (in social and
economic terms) of Earth science applications to inform and improve decisions. Efforts
include advances in analytic techniques as well as the application of methods to
agriculture topics. The awardee is expected to produce case study examples, as well as
to publish in scholarly, grey, and popular literature. The scope includes both quantitative
and qualitative assessments; emphasis is strongly on quantitative assessment and
analysis, although this does not explicitly imply monetization of impacts. Nonmarket
valuation is allowed. Proposal teams must articulate how they plan to approach these
assessments and the expected extent of such assessments in its overall program of
activities.6
4.3 Additional Information and Suggestions
Proposals to this program element must involve a transdisciplinary, multisectoral, and
diverse team of people and organizations to achieve the desired objectives. Proposal
teams should pursue a consortium arrangement to execute their program of activities.
ASP encourages a consortium as a way to have a breadth of experience and the
flexibility and agility to respond to needs as the work unfolds; such an arrangement will
require an effective management structure with a program manager. The program
element encourages private sector entities to lead or be involved in consortia and/or to
submit proposals. Proposers should address diversity and inclusion as part of their
team, plan, and structure.
Inclusion is a core value of NASA. This call expects a commitment to an inclusive
environment and dedicated attention to increasing the diversity of thought and voices in
all activities, especially from organizations that are associated with or that serve
historically disadvantaged groups (e.g., MSIs, HBCUs, tribal colleges). Proposal teams
are encouraged to demonstrate and articulate how diversity and inclusion are integrated
and addressed in all aspects of their proposed work. Proposers seeking to enjoy the
benefits of a more diverse team may consider, for example, referring to the Minority
Serving Institution (MSI) Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/ as a place for
proposers to find participants on their proposals. Although not part of the peer review
process, the selection official may take into account programmatic considerations such
as impact on current or future missions, balance across: subdisciplines, technologies,

6 Through the ROSES-2021 A.48 Socioeconomic Assessments program element, ASP will select one or more
consortia focused on socioeconomic assessments of Earth science applications, including both methodologies and
capacity building. ASP expects that the awardee from this program element will communicate and coordinate with
that consortium(s) to some extent, which will be determined post award.

A.36-9
methodologies, career stage, risk, innovation, and/or types of institutions
(e.g., MSI, PUI, vs. R1).
The proposal should present a clear program management plan to achieve the
objectives outlined in Section 4.1. This plan should include: the development of a
strategic plan and setting benchmarks and goals; selection and support of applied
research projects and activities for agriculture; leading partnership development and
stakeholder engagement; coordination with NASA supported activities, programs, and
researchers; representing relevant NASA research, capabilities, and tools; and
implementing program processes such as for reporting and evaluation.
ASP is interested in showcasing the value and benefits of the broad set of Earth satellite
missions and observations. While ASP recognizes that some missions and observations
are used more than others in applications, ASP strongly encourages that proposed work
show breadth in the satellite missions and observations covered. Teams can consider
impacts from data products from non-NASA satellites, including foreign satellites, if
used in conjunction with some NASA observations, models, or capabilities.
ASP recognizes that the scope of this program element is broad. ASP suggests that
teams offer, where appropriate, a conceptual framework(s) that outlines the intended
foci, dimensionality, or stages of their proposed work over the life of the award. In
addition, ASP suggests that teams offer a logic model or results framework to convey
the strategy, causal linkages, and progress and results toward the objectives. Proposals
must articulate the rationale underlying any framework(s) offered; frameworks may be
refined with the awardee throughout the course of the cooperative agreement.
As a standard practice, ASP personnel participate in conferences which practitioners
and end users attend, which supports two-way dialogue. ASP expects the awardee to
follow similar practices, especially to learn which decisions, adoption methods, and
valuation metrics resonate with particular user communities in food security and/or
agriculture. ASP expects the awardee to attend and participate in at least two
conferences per year agreed upon between the Consortium team and the NASA
Agriculture application area management team. Proposal teams must budget
accordingly and can use travel costs to the farthest coast in the proposal for budgeting
purposes.
There will be at least one in-person meeting with the awardee each fiscal year to
discuss progress and plans. Proposal teams must budget for one two-day trip for its
primary personnel to the Washington, DC area per year. See also Section 8 for
reporting information.
ASP encourages involvement with personnel knowledgeable about NASA Earth
science, data, and disciplines during proposal development and throughout the project
itself. There are many organizations and experts (inside and outside of NASA) that are
knowledgeable of and familiar with NASA Earth science, data, and disciplines. There is
no inherent or implied advantage or disadvantage to having a NASA Center as part of a
proposal. It is up to the proposal team to determine what organizations’/experts’
involvement supports and is advantageous for the proposed project. NASA suggests
that proposal teams identify people with appropriate knowledge and skills to support the
proposal rather than the institution. Proposal teams can consult with other elements

A.36-10
within the ASP (e.g., ARSET), and teams can include activities in the proposals that
align with the elements.(See Section 2.1) However, the ASP elements, their leaders,
and staff must not be part of a proposal submission.
There are numerous private sector organizations, professional organizations, and
associations focused on agriculture and related topics which may be beneficial to
proposal teams. ASP suggests that proposal teams consider them in the context of this
program element, such as for partnering, networking, and brokering.
ASP plans to generate a series of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) in association
with this program element. Proposal teams are encouraged to check regularly the
NSPIRES page associated with this program element for the FAQs and any updates.
5. Proposal Content
Proposals must provide sufficient detail to allow reviewers to assess viability and
potential success. Table 1 of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation provides a
summary of the required components of a proposal. The following section provides
information in addition to the guidance in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
5.1 Scientific/Technical/Management
The page limit for this Scientific/Technical/ Management section is 20 pages plus two
(2) pages for Schedule and Milestones (Section 5.2) and two (2) pages for a Data
Management Plan (Section 5.5).
The Scientific/Technical/Management section of proposals must include the following
items:
• Characterization of the current state of practice; comprehension of the topic and how
the proposed work will augment the current state;
• A program of activities, its goals, and how it relates to the purpose, objectives, and
scope in Section 3;
• Description of the breadth, depth, or focus of the program of activities, including any
framework(s) offered;
• Examples of technical and programmatic experimentation envisioned;
• Description of the consortium; description of the consortium’s expertise in program
management and across Earth science, agriculture (and related topics),
engagement activities, applications development, communications,
social/economic/decisions sciences, and other key topics and factors described
within;
• How the consortium will address the proposed work, including efforts to ensure
flexibility and agility;
• Descriptions of the relationship envisioned with NASA in the cooperative agreement;
• Descriptions of the challenges and risks affecting success of the venture, and the
approaches to address the challenges and risks;
• Approaches to capture, on an ongoing basis, what is and isn’t working in the
program of activities, and how this knowledge will be captured, used, and shared;
• Plans for impact assessments;
• Discussion of other items encompassed in the scope.

A.36-11
In addition, proposals must have the following discrete subsections in the Scientific/
Technical/Management section. There are no guidelines on page limits for these
subsections; proposal teams can determine the space to allocate to these subsections
within the page totals for the Scientific/Technical/Management section.
5.1.1 Indicators
This subsection describes the indicators and/or indicator framework proposed to assess
and communicate progress toward the objectives, especially advances in knowledge
and capacity with Earth science information for applications.
5.1.2 Anticipated Results/Improvements
This subsection describes the expected outputs, results, and outcomes from the
proposed work and program of activities. The subsection must include metrics for
performance.
5.1.3 Consortium Management
This subsection describes the approach used to manage the proposed work and
program of activities. Topics might include consortium structure, management
arrangements, roles and responsibilities, governance, and other aspects describing how
the proposal team plans to organize, coordinate, and make decisions as well as how to
conduct, review, and adjust its work.
5.2 Schedule and Milestones
Proposals must include and describe a schedule for the proposed work and program of
activities, including milestones for goals and key elements in the proposed program. A
maximum of two pages is allowed; this is separate from the
Scientific/Technical/Management section.
5.3 Letters of Reference
As a modification to the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, proposals may include
up to four, one-page letters of reference from organizations about the proposal team or
about the letter writer’s interest in the results. The letters may include input from the
community and beneficiaries served by the organizations. All statements or letters must
be delivered to the Principal Investigator and included in the proposal. Letters sent to
NASA Applied Sciences (or delivered after the deadline) will not be considered in the
review process. These letters are separate from the Scientific/Technical/Management
section.
5.4 Budget
The budget must provide enough detail for NASA to connect the budget to the level of
effort needed to reach the objectives of the proposed consortium. See section 7 for
funding and award information.
5.5 Data Management Plan
In response to NASA’s renewed emphasis on open science and open data, it is
expected that the consortium will make available any data products generated under

A.36-12
this program element, following the data management plan outlined in the proposal and
given guidelines in Section 1.1 of A.1, the Earth Science Research Overview.
6. Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation “relevance” will reflect the extent to which the proposal addresses the key
objectives in Section 3.1 above.
In addition to the factors given in the definition of Merit in Appendix D of the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers, the evaluation criterion "intrinsic merit" specifically includes:
• Likelihood for success and demonstrable impact to the state of practice and
community capabilities;
• Quality, creativity, and adequacy of the program plan and ability to conduct them;
• Quality and adequacy of consortium expertise, structure, and arrangements;
extent and quality of teaming across appropriate sectors and areas of expertise;
• Quality and adequacy of approaches for programmatic and technical
experimentation; to ensure flexibility and agility; to capture what is and isn’t
working in the program of activities and to share this knowledge ;
• Quality of experience, plans and approaches to conduct market research and
engage and involve user organization(s);
• Quality, ability, and adequacy of proposed activities to assess and quantify the
value and benefits of applications;
• Abilities to enable adoptions of applications and transitions to sustained uses.
In addition to the factors given in the definition of the Cost criterion in Appendix D of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers, the evaluation of the cost of a proposed effort
specifically includes:
• Overall approach and ability to manage the consortium cost effectively and to
achieve stated objectives, and
• Appropriate level of effort to meet the offered objectives cost-effectively.
Cost-sharing and external resource contributions to a consortium are not part of the
evaluation criteria and are not included in the peer review scores. However, at the time
of project selection, NASA may consider any such contributions as one of the factors
when deciding between proposals of otherwise equal merit.
7. Funding and Award Information
Maximum Period of Performance Five years
Type of Award Cooperative Agreement
Expected Project Start Date Six months after proposal due date
Total Amount of NASA Funding (FY23- $15M total
27)
Anticipated Number of Awards One award
Expected Level of Award $3M per year total
Contributions from Other Organizations See Sections 6.
Note: Contributed funding is in addition
to NASA funding; it does not count
toward funding level guidelines.

A.36-13
The total period of performance is five years. In accordance with the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers Appendix G, ASP will conduct a NASA-organized full peer evaluation of
the award after the first three years in order to qualify for continued funding.
ASP plans to pursue a cooperative agreement funding instrument, given the substantial
level of interaction and cooperation expected to achieve the desired objectives. As
such, a proposal must describe the relationship it envisions with NASA. For example,
NASA may facilitate joint communications activities with the consortium or outreach to
NASA partners and stakeholders relevant to the consortium’s objectives.
ASP may augment the awards for certain activities based on results of coordination and
interaction in the cooperative agreement. In addition, ASP may augment an award
based on additional scope.
8. Award Reporting Requirements
If the awardee is a team of organizations or subcontractors, consolidated project
reports, including financial records, must be submitted and are the responsibility of the
lead organization. In addition to reporting requirements in the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation, the following reports are required of which NASA may request a
presentation (physical or virtual). The proposed budget must provide for these reporting
requirements:
• Program Management and Costing Plan: Within 60 days of the award, awardee will
produce a project plan to articulate objectives, activities, milestones, management
structure, staff responsibilities, communications strategy and other information on
execution of the project. The project plan and costing plan will be updated as
needed throughout the period of performance.
• Periodic Reporting:
o Quarterly: The awardee will produce reports on a quarterly basis. These reports
must provide a summary of the work, activities, events, etc. from the past
quarter; key highlights and achievements; progress or adjustments to
milestones; major activities, events, and expected milestones in the next two
quarters; and issues, problems, risks, and plans of action to address them. The
awardee is expected to report on the project portfolio and changes, including
Application Readiness Level (ARL) status for active and recently closed
projects.
o Annual Summary/Progress Report: The awardee will produce an annual
summary of its activities to highlight achievements for the year and changes in
plans. The annual summary must convey experimental programmatic
approaches initiated, continuing, completed, or cancelled in the previous year,
including explanations, reflections, and lessons learned.
o Final Report: In addition to the reporting requirements in Section VI(c) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, the Final Report summarizes the overall
activities of the award, including achievements, progress, impacts, smart
practices, experimental practices, findings and conclusions, remaining issues to
address, and other information to provide an appropriate documentation of the

A.36-14
 award. The report must also explain any variations in the anticipated results
and a discussion of major problems (technical or other). The report must
describe the state-of-practice at the end of the venture, and it must include
lessons learned and recommendations.
• NASA Outreach and Inreach
o The scope includes significant engagement and communications activities, and
these activities may require and involve the development of specialized
materials, examples, briefings, articles, and other items. Proposal teams must
budget for these accordingly. By the end of January each calendar year, the
awardee will provide an annotated timeline of activities and a set of materials
directly associated with the award from the prior year.
o Periodically, ASP and ESD may request information about projects,
achievements, and key events to support their respective communications and
outreach activities both internal and external to NASA. The awardee are
expected to support such requests and must budget for these accordingly.
• Publications and Socioeconomic Impact Assessments:
o The awardee is expected to produce articles for scholarly/refereed, grey, and
popular literature. On a semiannual basis (January-June and July-December),
the awardee will produce an annotated bibliography of all their publications
from the previous half year.
o The awardee will produce a report for each socioeconomic impact assessment.
The awardee is strongly encouraged to publish papers and articles for
scholarly, grey, and popular literature for these assessments.
• Reporting Presentations:
o Applied Sciences Program Reviews: Applied Sciences conducts program-wide
reviews approximately six times a year to review status, progress,
achievements, and financial situations within the applications areas, capacity
building, and selected projects. The awardee is expected to provide information
to support the program reviews. A representative from the team participates
(physically or virtually) in the reviews.
o Annual Team Meeting: Awardee representative(s) must plan to travel and
participate in one Program-sponsored results workshop/conference per year.
The proposal teams must budget accordingly to attend these annual events.
(While the location will likely rotate, teams can use a five-day trip to
Washington, DC, as a domestic location for budgetary purposes.)
The awardee(s) will be responsible for timely maintenance (via an online system) of
information, status updates, highlights, and milestone achievements. NASA will
coordinate with the PI at the time of the award to provide the necessary information for
the online system. During award negotiation, NASA representatives will discuss
methods, including electronic reporting, to transmit the reports and presentation
packages. The NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) will also solicit and archive the
annual progress reports and final report.

A.36-15
9. Summary of Key Information
Expected Annual program budget
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Notice of Intent to
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of investigation
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of
this program element
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
preparation and submission of
proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
A.36-16
$3M, see Section 7
1
5 years
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Six months after the proposal due date
20 pages. 2 extra pages are allotted for the
DMP (section 5.5) and 2 extra pages for the
Schedule and Milestones (Section 5.2)
This program is relevant to the Earth
science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See A.1 the Earth Science Research
Program Overview, and Section IV and
Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726
NNH22ZDA001N-AG
Point of contact concerning this
activity
Bradley Doorn
Applied Sciences Program
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 255-7957
Email: Bradley.Doorn@nasa.gov

A.36-17
A.37 SERVIR APPLIED SCIENCES TEAM
U

NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in

ROSES this year. This program is tentatively scheduled to next solicit
proposals in ROSES-2024.
1. U Objectives
Within the Earth Science Division (ESD) of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD),
the Applied Sciences Program (ASP) discovers and demonstrates innovative uses and
practical benefits of NASA Earth science and data from Earth-observing satellites for
disasters, health and air quality, water resources, ecological forecasting, and food
security and agriculture. The Program partners with organizations from the public and
private sector to apply scientific findings and satellite data in their decision-making
activities. The Program has three primary areas of operations: applications, capacity
building, and mission planning. All Program activities support goals to deliver near-term
uses of Earth observations, build capabilities to apply Earth science data, and contribute
to satellite mission planning. By working with partners and continuing to build an
inclusive ecosystem of new collaborations, the Applied Sciences Program identifies
innovative ideas and priorities for new applications that engage a spectrum of
perspectives.
Within the Applied Sciences Program, the Capacity Building builds capacity around the
globe to expand the Earth observations user base and increase awareness within non-
traditional audiences of NASA Earth observations data and products. A variety of
methods and approaches are employed and experimented with to better build
capabilities in individuals, organizations, and institutions to use Earth observations in
decisions and actions. The SERVIR program element is within the Capacity Building
program. More information is available through the Applied Sciences Program’s website
at https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/ .
36TU U36T

SERVIR , a joint initiative of NASA and the U.S. Agency for International Development
36T 36T

(USAID), fosters applications of Earth observations to help developing countries assess

environmental conditions to improve their planning and actions. This program element
requests proposals for the SERVIR Applied Sciences Team (AST), which will improve
the abilities of SERVIR regional hubs, national stakeholders, and users to apply Earth
observations.
The primary purpose of this team is to provide geographic and thematic applied science
expertise to regions supported by the SERVIR global network. Geographic regions
include Eastern and Southern Africa, Hindu-Kush Himalaya, Lower Mekong, West
Africa, and Amazonia. Thematic topic areas for this program element include Agriculture
and Food Security, Water Resources and Hydroclimatic Disasters, Land Cover and
Land Use Change and Ecosystems, and Weather and Climate. Each AST member will
co-develop application(s) with, and transfer them to, SERVIR regional hubs to
strengthen individual, organizational, and institutional capacity of hubs and their users to
address users’ decision-making needs. Team members will also communicate,
coordinate, and share expertise with each other and SERVIR hubs across thematic and
regional interests.

A.37-1
2. Point of Contact
Nancy Searby
Applied Sciences Program
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0395
Email: Nancy.D.Searby@nasa.gov
36T 36T

A.37-2
A.38 EARTH SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND RESILIENCE
U

NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in

ROSES this year. The Earth Science division estimates that it will be
solicited again next in ROSES-2025
1. Overview
The NASA Earth Science Division (ESD), Applied Sciences Program solicits proposals
for user-centric applications enabling prevention of new and reducing existing disaster
risks, which can transform behavior. The projects are expected to pilot and demonstrate
the advancement of mature science results through co-development of applications
toward infusion into an operational partner- or stakeholder-maintained activity. Selected
projects must use an earth system and geospatial approach within a risk assessment
framework, where satellite and other Earth observations incorporate broad social, fiscal,
economic, environmental and political data to inform choices, support decisions and
guide actions that reduce risk and build resilience. Successful projects will enable
integration of knowledge across sectors and geographies at local, national, regional and
global levels, especially for communities and areas at intense risk.
Disaster risk reduction and resilience applications will improve situational awareness
related to natural and human-induced perils (including those associated with floods,
landslides, tropical cyclones, earthquakes, volcanoes, and oil spills). Outcomes should
align with and advance the targets set out in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015-2030. Priority is given to applications for (i) Understanding disaster risk
(including exposure and vulnerability); (ii) Strengthening disaster risk governance to
manage disaster risk; (iii) Investing in disaster reduction for developing resilience and;
(iv) Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response, and to "Build Back
Smarter" in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. Projects are encouraged to
promote the access and use of open data, including near-real time data, and the
exploitation of geospatial analytics, visualization aids and interpretive Storymaps and
communication tools. The Disaster applications area website is available at
https://disasters.nasa.gov and the GIS mapping portal is at
30TU U3 0T

https://maps.disasters.nasa.gov .
30T 30T

While NASA does not anticipate soliciting proposals for this element in 2022, the
Disasters Program will consider proposals responding to significant Earth system
events (Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science – program element
A.24). These rapid proposals must be of an urgent nature to take advantage of a target
of opportunity due to an unforeseen event in the Earth system or be exceptionally novel
and innovative to advance Earth remote sensing outside the current slate of
solicitations. Particular interest is in advancement of mature applications with strong
user engagement, advancing anticipatory knowledge and prediction before, during
and/or after real-world events.
2. Point of Contact
David S. Green
Earth Science Division

A.38-1
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0032
Email: david.s.green@nasa.gov
30T 30T

A.38-2
A.39 HEALTH AND AIR QUALITY
U

NOTICE: NASA will not solicit proposals for the Health and Air Quality
program this year. It is anticipated that this program will be solicited
next in ROSES-2024.
1. U Overview
The Health and Air Quality application area supports the use of Earth observations in air
quality management and public health, particularly regarding infectious disease and
environmental health issues. The area addresses issues of toxic and pathogenic
exposure and health-related hazards and their effects for risk characterization and
mitigation. The area promotes uses of Earth observing data and models regarding
implementation of air quality standards, policy, and regulations for economic and human
welfare. The Health and Air Quality Applications area also addresses risks and effects
of climate change on public health and air quality to support managers and policy
makers in their planning and preparations. The Health and Air Quality applications area
website is available at https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/programs/health-air-quality-
30TU

program . U30T

The NASA Earth Science Division solicited Earth Science Applications: Health and Air
30T

Quality in ROSES-2021 and the Health and Air Quality Applied Sciences Team in
30T 30T 30T

ROSES-2020.
2. Point of Contact
John Haynes
Applied Sciences Program
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-4665
Email: jhaynes@nasa.gov
30T 3 0T

A.39-1
A.40 EARTH SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: ECOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
NOTICE: Amended November 14, 2022. This Amendment releases
final text and due dates for this program element which had previously
been listed as Ecological Forecasting with a TBD placeholder. Notices
of intent are requested by March 14, 2023, and proposals are due April
14, 2023. A virtual meeting for potential proposers will occur January
13, 2023, from 2-4 pm eastern time. Connect information will be posted
under other documents on the NSPIRES page for this program
element no later than December 13, 2023. This program element has
requirements that differ from and supersede the defaults in the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and the Guidebook for Proposers, e.g., cost
sharing (Sections 4.3.4 and 4.3.5) the 3-page "End User Description
Form" (Section 4.3) and use of the Earth Science Division's template
for work effort and current and pending support. The completed End
User Description Form must be uploaded as a separate document
within the NSPIRES submission system.
1. Overview
The NASA Earth Science Division (ESD) seeks proposals for projects that apply Earth
observations that will improve/develop decision-making activities and enable transition
and adoption by public- and/or private-sector organization(s) for sustained use in
decision-making. The focus of this program element is on applications and decision
support in the areas of ecological conservation and management. Specifically, we seek
projects that support decision-making activities to combat the spread of invasive
species, advance the use of ecosystem service assessment for decision-making, and
inform management, protection, and establishment of protected areas.
Through the integration of Earth observations, the overall objective of these projects is
to enhance the effectiveness of existing decision-making activities or to develop new
capabilities for decision-making where the need and activity can be clearly defined and
justified. Funded activities will be conducted in partnership with end users. These end
users are groups, organizations, bodies, or people with a specific decision-making need
and an authority to act based on the decision made (see Section 4.3). The end user
organizations (that will implement improvements and operate the decision-making
activity) are expected to be substantially involved in the proposal development and the
project itself. Additionally, the end user is expected to be expressly committed to
maintain, support, and sustainably use the Earth observations application resulting from
the project in their decision-making activity.
2. Scope of Program
2.1 NASA Applied Sciences Program
The Applied Sciences Program supports efforts to discover and demonstrate innovative
and practical uses of NASA Earth science data, knowledge, and technology. The
Program funds applied science research and applications projects to enable near-term
uses of Earth science, transition applied knowledge to public and private organizations,
and integrate Earth science and satellite observations into organizations’ decision-

A.40-1
making and services. The projects are carried out in partnership with end user
organizations. The Program thus serves as a bridge between the data and knowledge
generated by NASA Earth science and the information needs and decision-making of
government agencies, commercial companies, not-for-profit organizations, and others.
The Program allows and encourages private sector companies to submit proposals
and/or be involved in project teams. For more information visit the Applied Sciences
Program website at https://AppliedSciences.NASA.gov.
2.2 Ecological Conservation Application Area
The Ecological Conservation Application Area (formerly Ecological Forecasting) is the
source of this program element. The Ecological Conservation Application Area
promotes the synergistic use of Earth observations, in situ observations, and models to
analyze and forecast changes that affect ecosystems and to develop effective
management strategies. Target end user communities are natural resource managers
(terrestrial, marine, and freshwater) and, in particular, those involved in conservation
and ecosystem management. The Ecological Conservation Application Area supports
the development, improvement, and application of predictive tools - with associated
uncertainties - for assessing alternative approaches and designing effective decision
support strategies. The Ecological Conservation Application Area applies current
scientific understanding and modeling capabilities to determine how ecosystems and
their components (e.g., species and genes) are changing/likely to change over time and
supports organizations applying that knowledge and information in decision making.
More information on the Ecological Conservation Application Area can be found here.
Detailed information on the history of the Application Area and the Biological Diversity
Program (a stand-alone research activity in the NASA Earth Science Division) can be
found at https://cce.nasa.gov/biodiversity/index.html.
3. Scope and Purpose of Program Element
Success in a funded project under this program element is seen through concrete
demonstration of impact with the end users, their decision making, and their
conservation practices. Ultimately, impact is defined as tangible benefits to the end
user, improved outcomes in their actions from using Earth observation in their decision-
making process, and/or measurable improvement in the lives and livelihoods that their
decisions affect.
While we recognize some of these benefits may not be available until the end of, or
even after, an award, impact can be indicated through measurable improvement in the
knowledge used to inform decisions. For instance, an increase in spatial or temporal
resolution, a reduction in error rate, or a new variable measured constitute an
improvement in knowledge. When linked with the theoretical benefits that will result from
integrating this newfound knowledge into decision-making, the future impact is credibly
forecasted. Once the product is operational, concrete examples of product use by the
end user serve as a measure of impact because they demonstrate that the end user
perceives that a benefit will result from the product’s use. This benefit is even clearer if
the product use can be linked to an explicit change in action by the end user. Greater
examples of impact translate to greater awareness, trust, and adoption of NASA Earth

A.40-2
observing capability for decision-making. Proposals must lay out a plan to report on
these impact measures during the lifetime of their award.
This program element solicits proposals for activities and products that will achieve
operational deployment and sustained use in decision-making by the end user(s) (i.e.,
Applications Readiness level or ARL 9, see Section 4.4) before the end of the award. To
feasibly achieve this objective, all submissions must show a demonstrated maturity in
development beyond initial discovery, feasibility, and development (i.e., start at ARL 5
or greater) and an established relationship with an end user. Within this constraint, this
program element seeks proposals addressing one of three topics. The first will support
decision-making to combat the spread of invasive species (Section 3.1). The second will
advance the use of ecosystem service assessment for decision-making (Section 3.2).
The third will inform management, establishment, or protection of protected areas
(Section 3.3).
Importantly, all proposals must combine three components: Earth observations (see
Section 4.1 for a description), in situ biological observations (see Section 4.2 for
examples), and ecological models to develop decision-support tools.
3.1 Combatting Invasive Species
An invasive species is a non-native species that has been introduced to an ecosystem,
and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or
harm to human health (Executive Order 13112). The proliferation of invasive species is
one of the greatest threats to global biodiversity. Invasive species cause negative
ecological and economic impacts, degrading ecosystem services, compete with native
species for space, food and other resources, and facilitate the spread of disease. It is
estimated that the cumulative economic impact of invasive species in the U.S. exceeds
21 billion dollars a year. The Convention on Biological Diversity and its members have
recognized the urgent need to address the impact of invasive species. As such, the
Convention calls upon member nations to control or eradicate those alien species which
threaten ecosystems, habitats or species.
The need for evidence-based decision support to combat invasive species spread has
never been greater. In spite of global mandates for action, and local, national, and
global investments, the spread of invasive species has only increased. Decision makers
cite a need for a greater ability to: 1) detect and forecast invasive species spread, 2)
evaluate alternative methods for preventing and responding to invasive species spread,
3) understand the impact of invasive species on biodiversity and ecosystem services,
and 4) assess priority areas for intervention likely to reap the greatest benefit for least
investment.
This topic seeks proposals that will develop and enhance Earth observation based tools
to allow natural resource managers, decision makers, and/or the general public to
combat invasive species spread. Proposals must clearly outline end user engagement,
collaboration, and how the project will inform end user actions to combat or prevent
invasive species.

A.40-3
3.2 Ecosystem Service Accounting
“The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must
turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value; and behaves
badly if it leaves the land poorer to those who come after it. That is all I mean by
the phrase, Conservation of natural resources. Use them; but use them so that as
far as possible our children will be richer, and not poorer, because we have lived.”
– Theodore Roosevelt, Speech to the Colorado Livestock Association in Denver
on August 29, 1910
Natural ecosystems freely provide benefits to humans called ecosystem services that
have economic value, and which should be incorporated into government and private
reporting, policies, programs, and decision-making. These benefits include provisioning
services that provide our food and water; regulating services that control climate and
disease; supporting services such as nutrient cycles and oxygen production; and
cultural services that have spiritual and recreational value.
Multiple domestic and international efforts have significantly advanced the methodology
and standards for systematically assessing ecosystem services, quantifying their value,
and relaying that information to decision makers. The Natural Capital Declaration, a
finance-led initiative resulting from the Rio+20 Summit in 2012, greatly helped to
integrate natural capital considerations into loans and public and private equity (The
Natural Capital Declaration 2012). The Natural Capital Protocol, following suit in 2016
for the rest of the private sector, provides a road map for companies to connect natural
assets to their accounting and understand the risks and opportunities therein (Natural
Capital Protocol). Now, the UN System of Environmental Economic Accounts has
developed a set of Ecosystem Accounts that provide internationally accepted statistical
standards for countries interested in evaluating ecosystem services and their
contribution to the economy within their national accounting framework (United Nations).
Multilateral development banks consider natural capital and/or ecosystem services in
their performance standards and programs, such as the World Bank’s WAVES program
(Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services). The knowledge and
ability gained from these initiatives is now ready to inform critical conservation decision-
making around the world and demonstrate the benefits to the end users who use them
for decision-making.
This topic seeks proposals that will develop and enhance Earth observation based tools
together with governments, natural resource managers, conservation decision makers,
and/or the public to incorporate ecosystem service assessment and valuation into their
decision-making. Proposals must clearly outline end user engagement, collaboration,
and how the project will inform end user actions.
3.3 Protected Area Management
Protected areas (e.g., national parks, wilderness areas, community conserved areas,
nature reserves, etc.) have long been a primary tool for conservation of terrestrial,
freshwater, and marine ecosystems. Given their demonstrated value to conservation of
natural systems, recent international initiatives have set numerical targets for certain
percentages of the Earth’s land and water areas to be managed as protected areas.
Both the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Targets and UN Sustainable

A.40-4
Development Goals call for the expansion of protected areas around the globe. Recent
conservation initiatives seek to protect 30 percent of the Earth’s land and water areas
by 2030, rising to 50 percent by 2050. By most accounts, there continues to be a need
for better protected areas management and an expansion in the size and number of
protected areas to conserve nature and the ecosystem services it provides.
This topic seeks proposals that will develop and enhance Earth observation based tools
together with natural resource managers and/or decision makers to manage, protect,
and establish protected areas. Proposals must clearly outline end user engagement,
collaboration, and how the project will inform end user actions.
4. Requirements for All Proposals
Proposals, regardless of topic, must include the following elements:
Data and Analysis
• NASA Earth observations, as defined in Section 4.1.
• In situ biological observations, examples in Section 4.2.
• Ecological models of use to the end user organization(s) — with associated
uncertainties noted and explained.
End User Participation (see Section 4.3.1)
• An individual from the end user organization is a member of the project team with
clearly defined roles.
• Schedule for end user engagement with the project team.
Statement of End User Decision-Making Need (see Section 4.3.2)
• Clear description of how the project products will be used for decision-making
within the end user organization(s), the expected outcomes on decision-making
and how the project products will impact decision making at the end user
organization, and how the end user plans to measure success of the project.
• Description of the authority the end users have to implement conservation action
based on the information gained from this project.
• Description of current methods to inform decision making and projected benefit of
the proposed decision support activity.
Sustainable Transfer Plan (see Section 4.3.3)
• Clearly define where the project products will be hosted during and after the
project award period.
• Identify and describe the potential barriers to use of the product(s) by the end
user organization(s) and plan to mitigate the barriers.
• Describe the means by which the use of the proposed product(s) will be tracked
(e.g., usage statistics) beyond the award term.
• Provide detailed plans for the transition of the developed product (dataset, tool,
model, etc.) to the end user community within the term of the award.
Cost Share (see Section 4.3.4)
• End user cost share plan (unless cost share exception is met, see Section 4.3.5).

A.40-5
Applications Readiness Level (ARL) Assessment and Minimum Requirement
• Proposals must contain an assessment of the ARL at the time of the proposal
submission and expected ARL advances over the course of the project for any
method, tool, or product to be developed through the proposed project (see
Section 4.4).
• All projects must begin at ARL 5 or higher, showing a demonstrated maturity in
development beyond initial discovery, feasibility, and development (see Section
4.4.1).
Team Meeting Attendance (see Section 4.5)
• Proposals must budget for all costs needed for transportation, lodging, and per
diem to attend the annual Biological Diversity and Ecological Conservation Team
Meeting.
4.1 Definition of NASA Earth Observations
For the purposes of this program element, "NASA Earth observations" means
measurements (i.e., data and information products) from NASA satellites (including the
International Space Station); simulated measurements from planned NASA satellites;
outputs and predictive capabilities from models associated with NASA products; NASA
algorithms; NASA visualizations; and other NASA geospatial products, including NASA
airborne products.
The use of non-NASA Earth observations is welcome - although, as this is a NASA
solicitation, proposals must incorporate specific NASA Earth observation products in the
products proposed. Earth observation products must be explicitly named within the
proposal. The proposal will be evaluated as to how essential the NASA data products
are to achieving the project goals.
Observations from suborbital airborne sensors may be included in proposals responding
to this program element. That said, the use of suborbital airborne sensors must be
clearly justified, complementary to, and, ideally, generate products coincident with the
data from the satellite and in situ observations forming the focus of this solicitation.
Proposed suborbital airborne activities, for which NASA funding is sought, must fit within
the funding limits of this solicitation and must also include a complete “includes-all-
costs” cost estimate for these suborbital activities, including a full flight cost estimate
(aircraft and instrument), data integration and analysis costs, etc. For proposed flights of
NASA suborbital airborne platforms, a flight request must be submitted to the NASA
Airborne Science Program at https://airbornescience.nasa.gov. NASA flight requests
must result in that part of the "includes-all-costs" cost estimate focused on the use of
the NASA suborbital airborne platform during the lifetime of the award.
NASA has arrangements with certain commercial providers of satellite imagery allowing
access to their commercial imagery by NASA-funded investigators. To learn more about
this imagery and determine the possibility of tasking certain commercial satellites,
please visit https://earthdata.nasa.gov/esds/small-satellite-data-buy-program.
4.2 In Situ Biological Observations
Examples of in situ biological observations include - but are not limited to - survey and
census results, tracks of animal movement or other behavioral data from Global

A.40-6
Positioning System tags or other biologging and biotelemetry devices, camera trap
imagery, information from acoustic sensors, various types of citizen science collections,
and outputs from environmental DNA (eDNA) or other “-omics” approaches. The
proposal will also be evaluated as to how essential these in situ biological observations
are to achieving the proposal’s goals.
4.3 End User
An end user is an individual or organization that uses the data, information, or other
products to support their activities for their benefit or for the benefit of others. For this
program element, that end user must have a specific decision-making need and an
authority to act based on the decision made. This solicitation seeks proposals whose
activities and products will achieve operational deployment and sustained use in
decision-making by the end user(s) by the conclusion of the award (i.e., they will
achieve ARL 9). As such, we seek end users who are positioned to enable this
achievement and can demonstrate the need for and use of a project’s product into their
organization’s decision-making activities. Some past projects have failed to achieve this
objective because an intermediary body was selected as an end user in lieu of one
responsible for decision-making and conservation action. For this reason, proposals
naming intermediary organizations as end users (who do not themselves have a
decision-making need and authority to take action on that need) will be deemed non-
compliant and returned without review. These intermediary organizations are welcome
participants in project activities, but do not qualify as end users.
Compliance here will be evaluated with the “End User Description Form” the individual
components of which are described below (Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5).
Proposers must stay within the space allowed on the “End User Description Form.”
These three pages do not count against the page limit for the
Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) portion of the proposal. The “End User
Description Form” is available to download from under other documents the NSPIRES
page of this program element. The completed End User Description Form must be
uploaded as a separate PDF document within the NSPIRES submission system, see
Section 6.1.
4.3.1 End User Participation in Projects
An individual from the end user organization implementing the application (tool, product,
etc.) must be included as a team member in all proposals. Proposal teams should
consider having the Principal Investigator (PI) be someone who is very familiar with the
needs of the end user (i.e., decision-making) organization or from the user organization
itself. The end user team member(s) will facilitate the development and transition of
products to sustained operational use within the end user organization. End user
organizations must be involved in the proposal planning stage to, at a minimum,
describe the management challenge(s) and decision-making improvements necessary.
Proposers must detail the authority the end user organization(s) and team member(s)
have to implement conservation action based on the information gained from this
project. They must also provide a clear description of how the project products will be
used for decision-making within the end user organization(s), how important the project
products are to the end user organization, and how the end user plans to track project

A.40-7
status and measure success of the project within the “End User Description Form”,
available to download under Other Documents on the NSPIRES page of this program
element. The completed End User Description Form must be uploaded as a separate
PDF document within the NSPIRES submission system.
4.3.2 Statement of End User Decision-Making Need
Funded projects serve to demonstrate how NASA Earth observations integrated with
airborne and in situ datasets can significantly advance real-world conservation decision-
making and conservation action. Therefore, projects must clearly define the decision-
making needs of the end users and the authority the end users have to implement
conservation action based on the information gained.
Proposers must detail membership and roles of the end users on the project team within
the “End User Description Form,” available under other documents on the NSPIRES
page for this program element. The completed End User Description Form must be
uploaded as a separate PDF document within the NSPIRES submission system.
4.3.3 Sustainable Transition Plan
A transition plan is required within the Science and Technical Section (Section 6.1.6) of
the proposal. The transition plan must outline a clear path for successful transfer of the
project products throughout the course of the funded project. This includes co-
development of user documentation and training materials, training activities as
necessary, and a process by which the partner can approve (or decline) the application
system for use in their decision-making activity (i.e., ARL 8). In addition, the end user
organization(s) is responsible for the operational costs required to maintain the decision
decision support system beyond the award term. Therefore, the transition plan must
describe transfer of the project products to the end user.
Proposers must succinctly state the core details of the transition plan within the “End
User Description Form.” This includes describing the “home” of the project products
beyond the award term, the barriers to sustained use by the end user, and known
means of tracking product beyond the term of the award. The “End User Description
Form” is available to download under other documents on the NSPIRES page for this
program element. The completed End User Description Form must be uploaded as a
separate PDF document within the NSPIRES submission system.
4.3.4 Cost Share
End User commitment is critical to the success of all NASA applications projects.
Specifically, this commitment is necessary for the co-production, transition, and
adoption of products for sustained use by end users beyond the term of the award. For
this reason, the Ecological Conservation Application Area has adopted a cost share
model to demonstrate both a demand from the end user for the proposed product(s)
and their ability to maintain the product(s) beyond the term of the award.
End users must contribute at least 30% of the total activity cost each year of the award.
Proposers may propose to meet the cost share at a higher rate. If the proposal is
funded, the awardee must meet the end user cost share percentage that was proposed
in the funded proposal. Proposal budgets that fail to include the required end user cost
share at these minimum percentages may be rejected without review.

A.40-8
The monetary value of in-kind contributions must be provided and certified as part of the
annual and final reports. As part of the annual and final reports, awardees will verify that
the cost share requirements have been met through certification by their Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR).
Failure to meet the required end user cost share during any budget year of the project:
• will require the awardee to reduce/return a proportion of NASA funds, based on
the missing amount approved cost share in that year,
• will be part of the yearly review to determine if NASA will continue funding for the
following year, and
• may result in additional enforcement actions, including termination, for failure to
comply with the terms and conditions of the award.
While this program element accepts in-kind contributions during the course of the
project as cost sharing, financial contributions are strongly preferred. Relevant past
work, prior results, or previous support and accomplishments can be described, but the
Applied Sciences Program does not consider these as cost sharing or in-kind
contributions for proposals to this program element.
2 CFR 200.306(b)(5) does not allow applying organizations to use funds, goods, or
services provided through a Federal award to meet the cost share requirements for
another Federal award. 2 CFR 200.38 defines a Federal award as the Federal financial
assistance or a cost-reimbursement contract that a non-Federal entity receives directly
from a Federal agency or a pass-through entity.
However, if the applying organization enters into a partnership agreement with an end
user that is a Federal agency and this agreement does not involve the transfer of any
funds, goods, or services to the applying entity, then that agreement is not considered a
Federal award. Therefore, the applying entity may use the Federal agency’s in-kind
support to meet the cost share requirements for this funding opportunity. 2 CFR
200.306 explains how to determine the monetary value of the support provided by the
partner agency. Proposers should use the budget narrative section to explain that this
support is provided under a partnership relationship and not through a Federal award.
Proposals must include Table A.40-1 below to document end user cost share. This cost
share table must be included as part of the separately uploaded Total budget PDF, see
Section 6.1.9. In addition, a letter of support from the end user noting their commitment
to this cost share must be included within the proposal, see Section 6.1.8. Failure to
include this table in the separately uploaded total budget or the accompanying letter of
support, as described in Section 6.1.8, may result in NASA’s returning a proposal
without review.
Please note, the budget submitted through the NASA NSPIRES Cover Page form must
only include the funds directly requested from NASA and must not contain the end user
contribution.

A.40-9
 Table A.40-1: Required Cost Share Table – Financial Contribution
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
NASA End User NASA End User NASA End User NASA End User
Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Percent Contribution 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Labor $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Facilities $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Equipment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Travel $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Traineeship Support $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Materials and Supplies $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Publication Costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Consultant Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ADP/Computer Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Subawards/Consortium/Contractual Costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Equipment or Facility Rental/User Fees $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Alterations and Renovations $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Overhead $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Other $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Please fill in the financial contribution of NASA and the End User to each year’s funding.
If a given line has no support from either the End User or NASA in a given year, please
write “0” within the cell. Please note, the NASA totals for each year must match the
annual totals listed in the cover page. A template for this required cost share table may
be downloaded from the "SARA" web page here. This cost share table must be included
as part of the separately uploaded Total budget PDF, see Section 6.1.9
4.3.5 Cost Share Exception
To ensure we are meeting the needs of those most impacted by and vulnerable to
environmental change (who have clear need for decision-making capability but may not
have the resources necessary to meet this cost share requirement), we are waiving the
cost share requirement for end users primarily representing indigenous or tribal
organizations and/or organizations primarily focused on serving the interests of
underserved communities. Here underserved communities includes populations that
have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic,
social, and civic life (Executive Order 13985).
Proposals seeking a cost share exception must justify their exception within the End
User Description Form. The form is available to download under other documents on
the NSPIRES page for this program element. The completed End User Description
Form must be uploaded as a separate PDF document within the NSPIRES submission
system.
4.4 ARL Assessment
Proposals must contain an assessment of the Application Readiness Level (ARL) at the
time of the proposal submission and expected advances over the course of the project
for any method, tool, or product to be developed through the proposed project. This
assessment falls within the S/T/M section of the proposal.

A.40-10
The Applied Sciences Program developed a nine-step ARL index to track the
development of applications and integration of Earth observations into end user
organizations’ decision-making activities. The ARL index is an applications adaptation of
the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale used in NASA to assess technical
maturity in sensors and hardware development. The ARL index provides a scale for the
expected advancement along a continuum, starting with a concept and progressing
through levels of development and transition to operational use. Compared to the
technology based TRL, the operational decision-making activity of the practitioner
organization is the applications analog to operation on orbit.
The ARL reflects three main tiers in applications development. In general, ARLs 1-3
encompass application discovery and feasibility; ARLs 4-6 address application
development, test, and validation; and ARLs 7-9 focus on application demonstration in
partners’ systems and transition.
Detailed definitions of each ARL level can be found here:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/ExpandedARLDefinitions4813.pdf
4.4.1 ARL Minimum Requirement
This solicitation seeks proposals whose activities and products will achieve operational
deployment and sustained use in decision-making by the end user(s) by the end of the
award (i.e., ARL 9). This means that the actual application system is completed and
“qualified” by the end user through testing and demonstration in the targeted decision-
making activity. The application is proven to work in its final form and under expected
conditions. In addition, user documentation, training documentation, and maintenance
documentation are completed (i.e., ARL 8).
To feasibly achieve this objective, all submissions must show a demonstrated maturity
in development beyond initial discovery, feasibility, and development (i.e., be at ARL 5
or greater). This means, the fundamental research that provides the basis for
applications ideas has already been completed (ARL 1), the decision-making activity to
be supported is fully understood and characterized (ARL 2), the viability of the
application has been established through proof-of-concept (ARL 3), the components of
the application system have been brought together with the technical integration issues
worked out (ARL 4), and the potential of the combined system to improve the decision-
making activity of the end user is determined and articulated (e.g., projected impacts on
cost, functionality, delivery time, etc.).
4.5 NASA Biological Diversity and Ecological Conservation Annual Team Meeting
Funded PIs are expected to attend the annual three-day NASA Biological Diversity and
Ecological Conservation Team Meeting (generally held each spring in the Washington,
DC area) during each year of their award. Thus, proposals must budget for all costs
needed for transportation, lodging, and per diem to attend these meetings.
5. Other Considerations
A proposal must be focused on only one of the three topics (given in Sections 3.1, 3.2,
and 3.3, respectively). However, an investigator may submit more than one proposal.

A.40-11
All topics welcome proposals looking at any biome (terrestrial, freshwater, marine, or
airborne) or geography.
Proposal teams wishing to work internationally must involve an established public or
private organization with an international mandate (e.g., a U.S. Government
organization with a foreign relations mandate and appropriation, a nongovernmental
organization, international financial institution, or philanthropic foundation). Proposals
involving international participants must also follow the guidance in Appendix A of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers on "Proposals Involving Non-U.S. Organizations."
The Applied Sciences Program allows and strongly encourages private sector
companies (and teams of companies) to submit proposals and/or be involved in project
teams. This program element welcomes proposals from tribes or other organizations of
Indigenous Peoples.
This program element seeks proposals for projects of up to four years in duration.
Proposals must meet the funding and time limits of this program element. Proposals
with budgets or schedules that exceed the guidance below (see Section 7 Summary of
Key Information) may be deemed non-responsive and may not be submitted by NASA
for peer review. If the project achieves a project transition before the time proposed,
then NASA will work with the team to pursue an additional project in the time remaining
in the award.
This program element strongly encourages multiorganizational, multidisciplinary, and
multisectoral teams. Proposals are strongly encouraged to have team members familiar
with the topics identified, relevant management or policymaking activities, and also the
needs of end users in these areas. The program element encourages early interaction
with personnel knowledgeable of NASA Earth science, models, and sensors (e.g.,
NASA science team and instrument scientists) to understand capabilities and limitations
of NASA tools.
NASA ESD is a strong supporter of the international Group on Earth Observations
(GEO), and the Applied Sciences Program supports numerous activities within the GEO
Work Programme. Applied Sciences may consider augmenting awards of selected
projects to support specific GEO Work Programme activities of interest and aligned with
the project. Interested project teams should contact the Ecological Conservation
Application Area program manager post award to discuss interest and possible
augmentation.
Please note, that all augmentation opportunities are contingent on projects having less
that 20% uncosted carry over. Uncosted carryover is defined as the amount of funding
sent to an institution in one Fiscal Year that is not spent in that Fiscal Year. We
encourage PIs to be in regular contact with their organization’s Office of Sponsored
Programs to ensure research costs are billed to NASA in a timely fashion.
6. Instructions for Preparation of Proposals
This section provides instructions for the preparation of proposals to this program
element. In some cases, these include modifications and augmentations that supersede
the defaults in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and/or NASA Guidebook for
Proposers.

A.40-12
6.1 Proposal Format and Contents
All proposals must provide sufficient detail to allow reviewers to assess viability and
potential for success. Proposals must adhere to the following page guidelines and
order. Sections that are part of the 15-page S/T/M section of the proposal have
suggested lengths, but the lengths of may vary as long as the total length of the S/T/M
section does not exceed 15 pages. Sections marked with an asterisk (*) do not count
against the 15-page limit but must not exceed the page limit noted for that section.
Sections marked “as needed” do not have a page limit.
Content descriptions and locations, specified below, may supersede those in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers or in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Follow these
instructions.
Proposal Cover Page…......................................................... As found on NSPIRES site*
Proposal Summary…..................................................... 4000 characters (on NSPIRES)*
Table of Contents….............................................................................................. 1 page*
Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section of the proposal (15-Pages Total):
Decision-Making Activity….............................. Part of 15-Page S/T/M section (~ 1 Page)
Anticipated Results/Improvements.................. Part of 15-Page S/T/M section (~ 1 Page)
Earth Observations Used................................. Part of 15-Page S/T/M section (~ 1 Page)
Science & Technical (including figures/tables). Part of 15-Page S/T/M section (~11
Pages)
Project Management Plan……………........... Part of 15-Page S/T/M section (~ 1 Page)
Letters from End User Organizations..........................................up to 4 two-page letters*
Proposals may exceed 4 letters to capture all end users contributing cost share.
Budget Justification: Narrative and Details ……………………………………....... as needed*
Facilities and Equipment (if applicable)............................................................as needed*
Biographical Sketches…………………….……....…….......... 2 pages (PI), 1 Page (Co-I)*
Table of Work Effort and Current and Pending Support.................................. as needed*
Data Management Plan....................................................................................... 2 pages*
References and citations................................................................................. as needed*
End User Description Form….............................................................................. 3 pages*
Total Budget File (Including Cost Share Table)............................................... as needed*
6.1.1 Proposal Summary
Entered into a 4000-character text box on the NSPIRES "cover pages," this section
must briefly describe the concept for the proposed activity. This section must state why
the activity should be done and how it relates to the topics identified in Sections 3.1, 3.2,
or 3.3 of this opportunity. It must be clear how the information provided from this project
will inform end user actions and how these actions will differ dependent upon the
results.
6.1.2 Table of Contents
This optional list of proposal sections facilitates a fair review by the panel. While
optional, it is strongly encouraged and does not count against the 15-page proposal
page count.

A.40-13
 6.1.3 Decision-Making Activity
While succinctly captured within the End User Description Form, this motivating section
provides additional space for a detailed narrative form description of the decision-
making activity to be addressed, created, and/or enhanced by the proposed activity.
The description must describe the management, business, policy topic, or other issue
that it serves. This section must identify and describe the end user organization(s) and
their responsibility and/or mandate to address the topic/issue.
This section must provide statement(s) from the end user(s)/practitioner(s) describing
the management challenge and the need and opportunity to improve decision-making.
As such, this section must state the metrics used by the end user organization to
assess their decision-making and state the baseline performance standard by which
project improvements will be compared.
6.1.4 Anticipated Results/Improvements
This section describes the expected results and improvements to the decision-making
activity from the application. Please review the first paragraph of Section 3, which
outlines the definition of “impact” and the ways in which it can be measured or
demonstrated. Success in a funded project under this program element is seen through
concrete demonstration of impact on the end users and conservation practices.
Ultimately, impact is demonstrated through tangible benefits to the end user and
improved outcomes in their actions from using Earth observation informed decision
support. Proposals must lay out a plan to achieve tangible measures of impact within
this section of the proposal. One team member must be designated as the applications
liaison whose duties are aimed at ensuring examples of impact are accomplished during
and after the award term.
6.1.5 Earth Observations Used
This section identifies and describes the Earth observations, derived products and/or
models (see Section 4.1) that the proposal seeks to apply to improve decision-making.
This section must include any NASA and non-NASA data sets that are expected to play
an important role in the application. Please note, simply listing NASA Earth observations
here is insufficient. Describe the use of each element and incorporate this information
into the methodological details provided in Section 6.1.6.
6.1.6 Science and Technical Section
This includes all figures and tables. As the main body of the proposal, the Science and
Technical section must cover the following material:
• How the proposed activity responds and relates to one of the topics identified in
Section 3.1, 3.2, or 3.3;
• Application of the Earth observations to the decision-making activity, including
rationale (per Section 4.1);
• Application of in situ biological observations to the decision-making activity, including
rationale (per Section 4.2);
• Application of ecological models to the decision-making activity, including rationale;
• Methodology to be employed in the application, including discussion of the innovative
aspects;

A.40-14
• Approach to assess the feasibility of the application, including scientific and technical
aspects, must state and describe the measures (both quantitative and qualitative) the
team will use to assess and judge the feasibility of the application;
• Estimate of the Applications Readiness Level (per Section 4.4) of the application,
including any expected improvements from beginning to end of the project;
• Challenges and risks affecting project success (technical, policy, operations,
management, etc.) and the approaches to address these challenges and risks;
• Relevant tables/figures that demonstrate key points of the proposal; and
• Describe the process to transition (see Section 4.3.3) and integrate Earth
Observations, model results, other new knowledge into the end user decision support
system. Also, describe how the enhanced end user decision support system will
continue to function or be sustained post project.
6.1.7 Project Management Plan
This section must articulate the management approach and structure; plan of work;
partnership arrangements; and the expected contribution, roles, and responsibilities of
the team members. Project schedule and milestones must be included. Note: Meetings
(number of, frequency of, etc.) do not qualify as project management milestones.
6.1.8 Letters of Support from End User Organizations
Each end user providing cost share must provide a letter stating their need and
commitment. Therefore, if there are more than four organizations contributing cost
share, proposals may exceed four letters to capture all cost share statements.
Otherwise, only up to four end user letters may be submitted. All letters must be
included within the submitted proposal. Letters sent via a mechanism outside of the
proposal submission text will not be considered in review.
6.1.9 Budget Justification: Narrative and Details
This section should present the rationale for planned work commitments set forth in the
table of personnel and work effort and describe the need for and provide costs for
procurements and travel, see Section 2.18 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers for
details. However, Peer reviewers do not need to know salaries or overhead rates to
evaluate the cost reasonableness of ROSES proposals. Thus, proposals are not to
include costs of salary, fringe, or overhead anywhere in the uploaded proposal PDF
document, including this Budget Justification: Narrative and Details section, which will
be seen by peer reviewers. Instead, proposers must include all costs (including salary,
fringe and overhead of NASA civil servants, all subawards, and any separate Co-I
awards) in two places outside of the uploaded proposal PDF: the NSPIRES web page
budgets and the separately uploaded "Total Budget" PDF file; see the walkthrough on
this subject. Proposers must include the cost sharing tables (see Section 4.3.4) as part
of the separately uploaded Total budget PDF.
6.1.10 Table of Work Effort and Current and Pending Support
Proposers must use the Table of Work Effort and the form for Current and Pending
Support located at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-science-
division-appendix-a-roses-proposals. The table of work effort and current and pending
support are the primary means of evaluating cost reasonableness. It allows the panel to

A.40-15
evaluate if adequate time has been committed to the project to achieve the intended
goals. All team members planning to commit any time to the project must be listed in the
work effort table. Please follow the guidance for these documents to ensure fair review.
6.1.11 Data Management Plan
All proposals must include a Data Management Plan (DMP) or an explanation of why
one is not necessary given the nature of the work proposed. The DMP conveys how
publications, data, and software will be managed to ensure their long-term accessibility
and to enable reproducibility of the research.
The sufficiency of the data management plan will be evaluated as part of the proposal’s
intrinsic merit and will have a bearing on whether or not the proposal is selected. The
data management plan will be placed in a 2-page section in the proposal PDF and does
not count against the page limit for the S/T/M Section.
For each data product, provide: (a) a short description of the product; (b) the importance
of the product (one sentence); (c) the type of data (e.g., time series, images, acoustic
recordings) and expected file extensions (e.g., .tiff, .csv); (d) estimated data volume; (e)
expected delivery or publication time (in project years); and (g) the data archival
location—the repository at which you plan to archive the data (e.g., Zenodo).
For each software product or modeling effort, provide: (a) a short description of the
product; (b) brief justification for creating the product for the end user; (c) the
programming language(s) to be used; (d) the open-source license to be assigned to the
product(s); and (e) a brief description of the expected documentation and where they
will be published (e.g., user manuals, demonstration videos).
Note: The project management plan must highlight the team member(s) that will
perform data management tasks. Costs associated with data management tasks must
appear – with explanation – in the proposal budget.
6.1.12 End User Description Form
This form provides space to succinctly describe end user participation, the end user
decision-making need and authority, the plan for sustainable transfer, and any
exceptions to the cost share requirement. Proposers must stay within the three pages
allowed. These three pages do not count against the page limit of the S/T/M section of
the proposal.
The content of the responses within this form will serve to evaluate compliance prior to
peer review, including the end user participation in the project (see Section 4.3.1), the
end user decision-making need and authority (see Section 4.3.2), the plan for
sustainable transfer, (see Section 4.3.3), and the cost share (4.3.4) or cost share
exception (4.3.5). Those found non-compliant through responses in this form will be
returned without peer review. Therefore, please take special care in responding to the
questions on the form. The “End User Description Form” is available to download from
under "Other documents” on the NSPIRES page of this program element. The
completed End User Description Form must be uploaded as a separate PDF document
within the NSPIRES submission system.

A.40-16
6.2 Evaluation Criteria
Proposals are evaluated according to the three default criteria (Merit, Relevance, and
Cost) defined in Appendix D the 2022 NASA Guidebook to Proposers and applied as
described in Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
6.3 Award Type
This program element will award funds through four vehicles: (1) grants, (2) cooperative
agreements, (3) interagency transfers, and (4) awards to NASA Centers. NASA does
not anticipate any contract resulting from this program element because it would not be
appropriate given the nature of the work being solicited.
6.4 Award Reporting Requirements
Each funded project will be responsible for timely maintenance of project information,
status updates, highlights, and milestone achievements. NASA will coordinate with each
PI at award to provide the necessary information.
The following reports will be required of funded projects. In cases where teams of
organizations or subcontracts exist, consolidated project reports, including financial
records, must be submitted and are the responsibility of the lead organization. The
proposed budget must provide for these reporting requirements.
6.4.1 Project Plan and End User Engagement Plan
Funded projects will have a Project Plan and End User Engagement Plan due within
three months of award.
6.4.2 Quarterly ARL Reports
Each quarter, project PIs must report the current project ARL and outline how they
completed milestones if the project ARL advanced.
6.4.3 Project Annual Report
Annual reports involve three items:
1. A brief (one page), written summary of the progress in the project to date; it must
identify key milestones (met or upcoming) and highlight changes from the proposal
or recent reporting.
2. A one-page project "quad-chart" (format provided at award) with Purpose and
Objectives, Approach, a Figure, and Key Milestones and ARL; quad charts are
updated as needed.
3. A verification of cost-share requirements certified by the project AOR (see Section
4.3.4).
The first annual report is due no later than twelve months after the project start date with
annual reports due thereafter on the project anniversary date.
6.4.4 End User Annual Report
Each year, awardees initiate sending a questionnaire to the end users on the project
which will be returned from them directly to NASA (copying the project team). This

A.40-17
questionnaire enables a user-focused assessment of project progress, use of the tools
developed, and changes in end user needs and intended use for the project products.
6.4.5 Final Assessment Report
A Final Assessment Report is required prior to the conclusion of the project. The Final
Assessment Report must describe how the award activities met the solicitation
requirements and demonstrated an impact on decision-making activities using Earth
observations. This report must also include lessons learned and recommendations. The
Applied Sciences Program may request presentations of the awardee’s report, results,
and findings. NASA, the Earth Science Division, and the Applied Sciences Program
may periodically request information to support outreach efforts, website content, etc.
7. Summary of Key Information
Annual Total Amount of NASA $3,000,000 per year
Funding
Anticipated Number of Awards 10 to 20
Maximum Duration of Awards Up to 4 Years
Contributions from End User Transition plan and resource commitments
Organizations from end user organizations are required
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of
investigation 6 months after the due date for proposals
Page limits See Section 6.1 of this Program Element
Relevance This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
this solicitation Solicitation.
Requirements for content of See Sections 4 and 6.1 of this program
proposals element, A.1 the Earth Science Research
Program Overview, and Section IV and Table
1 of ROSES-2022.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
submission of proposals of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
Web site for submission of proposal http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
via NSPIRES available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)

A.40-18
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program both of whom share this
postal address:
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available
at support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ECON
Keith Gaddis
Applied Sciences Program
Telephone: (202) 358-4651
Email: keith.gaddis@nasa.gov
Woody Turner
Telephone: (202) 358-1662
Email: woody.turner@nasa.gov
A.40-19
A.41 ADVANCING COLLABORATIVE CONNECTIONS FOR EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE
U

NOTICE: The Advancing Collaborative Connections for Earth System

Science program will not be competed in ROSES this year. NASA
anticipates soliciting this program element in ROSES-2023.
1. U Scope of the Program
The primary objective of the Advancing Collaborative Connections for Earth System
Science (ACCESS) program is to enhance, extend, and improve existing components of
NASA’s distributed and heterogeneous data and information systems infrastructure.
NASA’s Earth science data systems, comprised of both core and community elements,
directly support agency science and applied science goals and objectives. ACCESS
projects increase the interconnectedness and reuse of key information technology
software and techniques underpinning the advancement of Earth science research.
The ACCESS program supports the deployment of data and information capabilities
that enable the freer movement of data and information within our distributed
environment of providers and users. This often requires the use of tools to measurably
improve Earth science data access and data usability. Awarded projects are expected
to augment NASA’s heterogeneous data system components by leveraging mature
information technologies in innovative ways along with existing infrastructure to rapidly
deploy capabilities that address specific gaps or weaknesses.
The ACCESS program seeks to deploy and reuse existing technological solutions in the
support of Earth science data and information needs. The use of mature technologies
and practices helps to lower the overall project risk of system deployment, while making
these new capabilities readily available to research and applied science communities.
The reuse of existing Earth data and information systems infrastructure and interfaces
reduces cost, promotes a better environment for technology infusion, and improves
NASA’s system of systems infrastructure for users. The program encourages targeted
and reusable solutions to current data access and data usability issues by supplying
new tools to our Earth science research community.
2. U Point of Contact
Kevin Murphy
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-3042
Email: kevin.j.murphy@nasa.gov
27TU U27T

A.41-1
A.42 CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR EARTH SYSTEMS PROGRAM
U

NOTICE: This Program will not be solicited in 2022. We anticipate

that it will solicit proposals next in ROSES-2024.
1. U Scope of the Program
The primary goal of the Citizen Science for Earth Systems Program (CSESP) is to
32TU U32T

develop and implement capabilities to augment and enhance NASA scientific data and
capacity through voluntary observations, interpretations, or other direct participation by
members of the general public to advance understanding of the Earth as a system. The
program complements NASA's capability of observing Earth globally from space, air,
land, and water by engaging the public in NASA's strategic goals in Earth Science (see
https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy).
The program aims to advance the use of citizen science in scientific research about
Earth by directly supporting citizen science activities, as well as by deploying technology
to further citizen science research. This program element is a follow on to the 2020
CSESP ROSES Program element for which the funded projects are described on the
Citizen Science for Earth Systems Program page. While much of the focus of the
original program element has remained, the new program element also includes an
option to propose to analyze and interpret legacy NASA-supported citizen science data.
For the purposes of this program element, NASA citizen science data means data that
were collected by citizen scientists and that were derived from a NASA-funded citizen
science project, or citizen science data hosted directly on a NASA data system, or
citizen science data that are directly used to calibrate or validate NASA Earth
observation data.
2. Points of Contact
Kevin Murphy
Program Executive for Earth Science Data Systems
Telephone: (202) 358-3042
Email: kevin.j.murphy@nasa.gov

Gerald "Stinger" Guala

Telephone: (202) 255-3366
Email: gerald.f.guala@nasa.gov

A.42-1
A.43 COMMERCIAL SMALLSAT DATA ACQUISTION NEW VENDOR ONRAMP EVALUATION
NOTICE: Amended April 19, 2022. This Amendment releases final text
for this program element which was previously listed as TBD. NOIs are
requested by May 19, 2022 and proposals are due July 21, 2022.
Proposers must use the Earth Science templates for Work Effort and
Current and Pending Support, see Section 5.4.
1. Scope of Program
The purpose of this program element is to assemble four study teams, one team
corresponding to each of the four vendors being subjected to evaluation as part of the
third onramp to NASA’s Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition (CSDA) Program. The
four vendors being evaluated are: GHGSat Inc., Capella Space, GeoOptics, Inc., and
ICEYE.
The CSDA Program was established to identify, evaluate, and acquire data from
commercial sources that support NASA's Earth science research and application goals.
NASA's Earth Science Division (ESD) recognizes the potential impact commercial
small-satellite constellations may have in encouraging/enabling efficient approaches to
advancing Earth System Science and applications development for societal benefit.
The first evaluation of commercial data was performed as the Private-Sector Small
Constellation Satellite Data Product Pilot, which was formulated in 2017 to identify,
evaluate, and acquire remote sensing data in support of NASA’s Earth Science
research and application activities. The pilot has now transitioned to the CSDA Program
as it moved towards a sustained component of the ESD portfolio. An evaluation
corresponding to the second vendor onramp is currently underway and outside the
scope of this solicitation.
New vendors who meet the requirements set forth by the Earth Science Division for
consideration under CSDA are subject to an evaluation of their data. The data
evaluation is performed by a team of investigators selected from the research and
applications communities to assess their utility in achieving the scientific objectives of
ESD. The goal of this element is to serve as the vehicle for researchers to self-nominate
for the teams being assembled to evaluate the data from new vendors entering into
agreement with CSDA as part of the third vendor onramp.
2. Vendor Summary
Below is a brief description of the four vendors that are being considered as part of this
evaluation based on their responses to a Request for Information (RFI) issued by NASA
in December 2020. Note that all data under this evaluation will be purchased under the
standard CSDA US Government End User License Agreement.
2.1 GHGSat Inc.
GHGSat operates a fleet of three wide angle, Fabry-Perot interferometers designed to
measure the vertical column abundance of methane in the atmosphere. The
instruments are tasked to observe targeted locations, and thus data is available either
from the archive of their existing data holdings or tasked as a new order. Their data are
further discriminated by the source type into two categories – point sources (e.g., a

A.43-1
single or cluster of industrial stacks) and complex sources (e.g., large-scale features like
pipelines, large mine faces, etc.). Further information on these products are available in
the product documentation attached to the solicitation.
The GHGSat product guide is provided under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES
page for this program element. It is also appropriate to contact the vendor with further
questions regarding the data products at csda_info@ghgsat.com.
2.2. Capella Space
Capella Space operates a constellation of seven Synthetic Aperture Radar
microsatellites operating in the X-band. They aim to provide frequent and timely imagery
at sub-meter spatial resolutions through their constellation strategy, which covers the
globe via multiple inclinations. They offer multiple resolutions through multiple products,
specifically Spotlight, Sliding Spotlight, and Stripmap imaging modes and single look
complex, geocoded ellipsoid corrected, and geocoded terrain corrected levels of
processing. Further information on these products are available in the product
documentation provided under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this
program element.
The Capella Space product guide is provided under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element. It is also appropriate to contact the vendor
with further questions regarding the data products at milo.vejraska@capellaspace.com
and support@capellaspace.com.
2.3 GeoOptics, Inc.
GeoOptics operates a constellation of two satellites that measures occultation events of
GNSS signals through the Earth’s atmosphere. GNSS signals that pass through the
earth’s atmosphere and ionosphere can be used to retrieve the vertical structure of
refractivity. Level 1 products of the precise orbital determination, occultation open loop
tracking, and satellite attitude are available as well as Level 2 products of the
atmospheric bending angle and refractivity. Additionally, Level 2 ionospheric products of
total electron content (TEC) information are available and may be considered for
evaluation. Further information on these products are available in the product
documentation attached to the solicitation.
The GeoOptics product guide is provided as an attachment under "Other Documents"
on the NSPIRES page for this program element. It is also appropriate to contact the
vendor with further questions regarding the data products at nasa-data@geooptics.com.
2.4 ICEYE
ICEYE provides a global imaging service using its fleet of seven Synthetic Aperture
Radar small satellites. The ICEYE fleet operates X-band sensors on a number of sun-
synchronous satellites covering some diurnal information via local times of the
ascending node (LTANs) that range from 1404 LST to 2230 LST. Their data provides
single look complex (SLC) and ground range detected (GRD) using Strip, Spot, and
Scan imaging modes. Further information on these products are available in the product
documentation attached to the solicitation.

A.43-2
The ICEYE product guide is provided under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page
for this program element. It is also available at https://iceye-ltd.github.io/product-
documentation/5.0/. It is also appropriate to contact the vendor with further questions
regarding the data products at customer@iceye.com.
3. Types of Proposals Solicited
This ROSES element solicits proposals that specifically target one of the four vendors
listed above. Each vendor will have its own Evaluation Team consisting of the projects
that are selected from proposals to this call, and the evaluations will be performed only
in the context of how their data fits within the scope of NASA Earth Science activities.
While investigators may propose to evaluate multiple vendors, they must propose to do
so as separate efforts with separate proposals. No cross-comparison of vendors under
evaluation will be considered. However, it is appropriate to utilize data from other,
previously evaluated vendors from within the CSDA holdings (available at
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/esds/csdap). As each vendor will be evaluated
independently, overlap, including multiple proposals from a single Principal Investigator,
is appropriate as long as the evaluations are performed separately, including separate
reporting for each evaluation.
3.1 Vendor Evaluation Criteria
The purpose of the vendor evaluations is to investigate and characterize the utility of a
vendor’s data holdings in the context of the NASA Earth Science research and
applications. As such, projects are sought to broadly encompass NASA Earth Science
Research, Analysis and Applied Sciences Focus Areas and Programs.
The feedback provided from the Evaluation Team will be used to assess:
1. The accessibility of vendor supplied imagery and data: The ease and efficiency
with which data can be searched, discovered, and downloaded from vendor
systems.
2. The accuracy and completeness of metadata: The accuracy and completeness
of metadata that accompanies the data provided by the vendor.
3. The quality of User Support Services: The availability, responsiveness, and
technical expertise of the vendor required to answer PI inquiries.
4. The usefulness of data for advancing Earth system science research and
applications: The ability of vendor-provided data to support Earth system science
research and applications activities.
5. The quality of vendor supplied imagery and/or data: Data attributes such as
geolocation accuracy, radiometric calibration, and platform intercalibration.
3.2 Evaluation Team Participant Responsibilities
The Data Evaluation Teams selected via this call for proposals will function under the
general direction of the Evaluation Team Lead and the CSDA Project Scientist. In
addition to performing the scientific assessment of the data, responsibilities will include
the expectation to:
1. Complete the assessment within one year, including submitting a detailed final
report,
2. Complete one initial survey on data access,

A.43-3
 3. Participate in monthly virtual assessment team tag-up meetings to develop
collaborative plans and report findings and/or data issues,
4. Participate in an in-person (or virtual, situation depending) mid-term reporting
meeting,
5. Provide any input to CSDA over the course of the evaluation that is believed to
be appropriate, particularly concerning the value of commercial satellite data to
NASA’s research and/or applications program.
3.3 Evaluation Team Membership and Work Plan
Each proposal shall include a 7-page Scientific/Technical/Management section
describing the methodology that will be employed to perform the evaluations. As part of
this section, the investigators shall address specifically how their proposed methodology
maps onto the objectives of the NASA ESD Research & Analysis and Applied Sciences
Programs (for more information, see ROSES-2022 A.1 – Earth Science Research
Overivew), with specific references to existing programs and focus areas.
Included in this section should be a brief description of the data needed to perform the
evaluation. List the data sets that you are proposing to evaluate. Provide as clear a
statement as possible about the location and timing (including frequency) of
required/desired data. As much as is reasonable, provide quantitative estimates of data
coverage and volume needed for evaluation.
Please note the two following points: First, the amount of data should reflect that
needed to evaluate the utility of the data within the proposed effort, and this may differ
from a full, scientific research project. Second, the cost of the data will be covered by
CSDA and does not need to be reflected in the proposal budget. The total amount of
data purchased by CSDA for these assessments will be subject to budgetary
constraints. As part of their work plan, PIs are to briefly address how their methods will
be affected if their allocated data amounts are below their nominal request due to
budgetary constraints.
3.4 Evaluation Team Leadership
Optionally, an evaluator can propose to also serve as the Evaluation Team Lead. Each
vendor’s Evaluation Team will have its own Team Lead. These positions will work with
the CSDA Project Scientist to foster the team’s success. This includes the organization
of meetings and leading in a final summary report, that will synthesize and summarize
the findings of each evaluator’s final report. Each Evaluation Team Lead will receive up
to an additional $25,000 to support their leadership activities, and these funds must be
included as a separate component of the budget.
Candidate Evaluation Team Leads should provide up to two additional pages, which do
not count as part of the proposal’s S/T/M section, describing the following:
- Experience with team leadership
- Experience in collaborating across different sectors – including government,
industry, and academia
- Demonstrated ability to organize and communicate results of group efforts,
particularly to headquarters (NASA, elsewhere, or analogous) program
management

A.43-4
3.5 Statement of Conflict of Interest
Each proposal must include a statement verifying that you have not in the past, do not
currently, nor intend in the future to have any type of financial arrangement with any of
the company(ies) whose data you are proposing to assess. Past arrangements with the
vendors will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Any current financial support from
one or more of the respective company(ies) listed above would potentially compromise
the independence of the evaluation. If you have any specific questions regarding this,
please reach out to the contacts at the end of this solicitation.
3.6 Travel
Evaluation Team members should plan for one three day trip in Washington, DC
corresponding to the mid-term reporting meeting, though virtual options will be
considered, if needed. Prospective team members should also plan to attend monthly
virtual teleconferences. The Evaluation Team lead should plan for an additional two day
trip to Washington, DC to present to CSDA and HQ management a summary of the final
summary report.
4. Proposal Evaluation
The three evaluation criteria are given in Section VI(a) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, and they are Relevance, Intrinsic
Merit, and Cost Reasonableness. Clarifications and additions specific to this program
element are listed below.
As it is the goal for these teams to view the data broadly across NASA Earth Science,
the proposals will be judged by their relevance to specific programs and focus areas
across ESD. Programmatic considerations may be taken into account in selection the
teams, see Section V(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
The merit of proposals to this program element will be judged in part by the extent and
effectiveness of the plan to assess the 5 items in Section 3.1 consistent with the
process and schedule given in Section 3.2. The merit of the proposals will also be
judged based on the validity of the scientific methods proposed, and how the methods
will contribute to NASA’s ability to formulate a final assessment of each vendor.
Though not specifically part of the budgeted cost of the proposals, the amount of data
needed to successfully complete the data evaluation will be considered as part of cost
reasonableness. As mentioned in Section 3.3, PIs should reasonably explain how much
data is anticipated for assessment while also providing reasonable strategies if their
allocated data amounts are below their nominal request due to budgetary constraints.
5. Programmatic Guidelines
5.1 Applicability to NASA Programs and Focus Areas
The work in this effort should be clearly mapped to the programmatic priorities of NASA
by addressing its applicability to specific NASA Programs and Focus Areas.
5.2 Diversity of the Investigation Team
At NASA, diversity and inclusion are central to scientific excellence and mission
success. NASA recognizes and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive

A.43-5
scientific, engineering, and technology communities. Projects that offer an opportunity to
tap the nation's diverse talent pool and broaden participation and inclusion in Earth
science and remote sensing are encouraged. Specific categories of organizations and
institutions that are welcome to respond include, but are not limited to, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges,
Other Minority Universities (OMUs). A resource that some proposers may find useful is
the NASA MSI Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
The Earth Science Division also recognizes its essential role in NASA's mission to
inspire the scientists and engineers of tomorrow and the importance of workforce
enrichment. As such, proposers are encouraged to include a training element of
undergraduate, graduate, and/or early-career researchers in their proposal. Roles,
responsibilities, commensurate resources, and mentorship plans as appropriate should
be detailed for all team members.
5.3 Proposals Requesting NASA High-End Computing Resources
Interested proposers should consult A.1 the Earth Science Research Overview, Section
5.4 High-End Computing, Networking, and Storage and Section I(e) of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation for a summary of HEC offerings and guidance on requesting
computing time.
5.4 Documenting Work Effort and Current and Pending Support
Work Effort and Current and Pending Support for PIs and Co-Is must be documented
using the templates available on the SARA webpage
(https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-science-division-appendix-a-
roses-proposals).
5.5 Future Evaluations and Timing of Submission
This element is following the standard ROSES submission timeline where the due date
for submission is 90 days following the release of the element. In the future, there is a
desire to accelerate the vendor evaluation process. Therefore, future CSDA elements
may be subject to a shorter open period.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for one- ~ $5.3M total for one year; ~$100,000 per
year new awards Evaluation Project and ~$25,000 for each
Evaluation Team Lead
Number of new awards pending ~52 total, or ~13 per vendor
adequate proposals of merit
Award duration 1 year
Due date for NOI See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of
5 months after the due date
investigation
Page limit for the central 7 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary
Science/Technical/Management of Solicitation; plus 2 pp for Team Lead self-
section of proposal nomination

A.43-6
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of Contact concerning this
program all of whom share this
postal address:
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
This program is relevant to the Earth science
strategic questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-CNVOE
Will McCarty
Email: will.mccarty@nasa.gov
Kathy Hibbard
Email: kathleen.a.hibbard@nasa.gov
Alfreda Hall
Email: alfreda.a.hall@nasa.gov and
Kevin Murphy
Email: kevin.j.murphy@nasa.gov
A.43-7
A.44 COMMERCIAL SMALLSAT DATA SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
NOTICE: Amended November 30, 2022. This Amendment releases
final text for this program element which was previously listed as TBD.
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process,
see Section 4. Step-1 Proposals are due January 18, 2023, and Step-2
Proposals are due March 23, 2023. There will be a telecon for
prospective proposers on Monday, December 19, 2022. Connect
information for this meeting has been posted under other documents
on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
Work Effort and Current and Pending Support for PIs and Co-Is are
only required for Step-2 proposals.
1. Background of Program
The purpose of this program element is to solicit projects that would utilize commercial
satellite data acquired by NASA’s Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition (CSDA)
Program in the context of the research, analysis, and applications of NASA’s Earth
Science Division (ESD).
The CSDA Program was established to identify, evaluate, and acquire data from
commercial sources that support NASA's Earth science research and application goals.
ESD recognizes the potential impact that commercial small-satellite constellations may
have in encouraging/enabling efficient approaches to advancing Earth System Science
and applications development for societal benefit.
The first evaluation of commercial data was performed initially as the Private-Sector
Small Constellation Satellite Data Product Pilot, which was formulated in 2017 to
identify, evaluate, and acquire remote sensing data in support of NASA’s Earth Science
research and application activities. The pilot has now transitioned to the CSDA Program
as it has become a sustained component of the ESD portfolio.
2. Research Scope
This element solicits activities that focus on leveraging data acquired by the CSDA
program to NASA Earth Science research or applications. Consideration should be
given to how CSDA data will provide new or supplemental scientific knowledge or
capabilities beyond work being formed under existing NASA Earth Science focus areas
and programs.
For this element, new research projects that utilize CSDA data are sought. However, it
is acceptable to extend previously or concurrently-funded research topics of other
projects to incorporate commercial satellite data, so long as the proposed effort is
structured as a new and standalone project.
3. Data Summary
This element focuses on the use of data that have been evaluated as part of the CSDA
program and incorporated into their standard data holdings, which can be viewed here.
These data are available to NASA-funded researchers for use in accordance with the
End User Licensing Agreements (EULAs) available as part of the aforementioned data

A.43-1
holdings table. All proposed efforts need to fall within the scope of the terms and
conditions laid out in the EULA relevant to each vendor. Please note that the EULAs
vary by vendor.
Proposals are sought that will utilize the current CSDA data that have already been
subjected to an evaluation and are thus listed in the standard data holdings table.
Proposals utilizing commercial satellite data that is currently under evaluation or
potentially subject to future evaluations (i.e., vendors being evaluated as part of the
second or third CSDA onramp activities, vendors without a current agreement with
CSDA) are not sought and will be considered non-responsive.
4. Programmatic Information
4.1 The Two-Step Proposal Process
The scope of this ROSES element is broad as it covers the entirety of NASA Earth
Science scientific research, analysis, and applications. To streamline the proposal
process both for interested applicants and for the agency in evaluating the proposals,
CSDA is using a two-step procedure. Step-1 proposals replace the Notice of Intent
(NOI). Step-1 proposals must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 Due Date. Step-
1 proposals are mandatory and must be submitted electronically by the Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR) of the proposing institution. Proposers should
refer to the "Instructions for Submitting a Step-1 Proposal" under "Other Documents" on
the NSPIRES page for this program element.
The NSPIRES system will guide proposers through the submission of all required
proposal information. Please note that the Proposal Summary, Business Data, Program
Specific Data, and Proposal Team are required Cover Page Elements for a Step-1
proposal. A budget should not be included with the Step-1 submission, but a full budget
and narrative will be needed at Step-2.
4.1.1 Step-1 Proposal Structure, Content, and Format
Step-1 proposals consist of a PDF document not-to-exceed five pages, including
references. All information needed to evaluate the Step-1 proposal must be within the 5-
page limit. The 5 pages consist of a 4 page Science/Technical/Management (S/T/M)
section and 1 page of biographical information for the proposing team.
So that the proposals are consistent for NASA reviewers, the S/T/M section should
consist of four pages, including references, and follow this structure:
- Describe the proposed research
- Identify the remote sensing assets from CSDA that will be utilized in the study, as
well as any other observing or modeling capabilities that will be leveraged
- Illustrate the programmatic relevance of the proposal to specific focus areas or
programs within ESD, specifically by referencing information contained in the
ROSES A.1 Earth Science Research Overview or other publicly-available
strategic documentation stemming from ESD. This narrative must match the
programmatic self-declaration discussed below in Section 4.2.
- Outline the expected outcomes of the research
- Provide a tentative schedule for the research and any deliverables.

A.43-2
The Step-1 proposal must also include a biographical sketch describing the PI, as well
as a brief description of the composition and expertise of the research team. This
should not exceed one page.
4.1.2 Step-1 Proposal Evaluation
Each Step-1 proposal will be reviewed internally to NASA by CSDA in coordination with
relevant programmatic representatives to determine whether the proposed research
project is considered of sufficient scientific merit and programmatic relevance to be
competitive in Step 2. The Step-1 review process will also consider the topical diversity
across ESD.
No individualized feedback will be provided in response to the Step-1 proposals.
Proposers will be informed via NSPIRES whether their submission has been
encouraged or discouraged for Step-2 submission. This assessment is non-binding, and
all Step-1 proposers can submit a Step-2 proposal whether encouraged or discouraged.
4.1.3 Step-2 Proposal Structure, Content, and Format
Step-2 proposals must contain the same scientific objectives as their corresponding
Step-1 proposal but give more detail. The page limit for the S/T/M section of the Step-2
proposal is 12 pages, which differs from the default given in ROSES and the guidebook.
The components of Step-2 proposals in order are given in Table 1 of ROSES-2022. The
page limits, components, and requirements are greater than those of the Step-1
proposal. This includes, but is not limited to, a data management plan, the Table of
Personnel and Work Effort, standard biographical information, and the institutionally
approved budget, see below.
Step-2 proposals should encompass and expand upon the content of the Step-1
proposal. The proposing team of the Step-1 proposal is not binding and may be
adjusted in the Step-2 proposal, if necessary.
Peer reviewers do not need to know salaries or overhead rates to evaluate the cost
reasonableness of ROSES proposals. Thus, proposals should not include costs of
salary, fringe, or overhead anywhere in the uploaded proposal PDF, including the
budget detail or justification sections in the Step-2 proposal, which will be seen by peer
reviewers. However, the separately uploaded “Total Budget” appendix seen only by
NASA must include all budget information, including salary, fringe, and overhead, that is
required for all proposals. See Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation and/or the ROSES FAQ for more information on budget redaction.
4.1.4 Step-2 Proposal Evaluation
Step-2 proposals will be subject to external peer review by panel, the structures of
which will be determined based on the programmatic scope and number of proposals
received. The peer-review process will be followed by a programmatic review of the
proposal, in which NASA will assess program balance across the competitive range of
proposals. The funding recommendations will then be forwarded to the Selecting Official
for confirmation. NASA will announce the official selection of proposals for award via
NSPIRES.

A.43-3
 4.1.5 Proposers Teleconference
A proposers teleconference will be held with CSDA Program Management on Monday,
December 19, 2022 from 1-2 PM Eastern Time. Meeting information may be found
under other documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
4.2 Program or Focus Area Self-Declaration
As part of the submission process in response to questions on the NSPIRES cover
page, proposers will be required to provide the primary (and optionally secondary) focus
area or program component within NASA ESD to which the proposal is relevant. This
self-declaration of focus area will be used in the programmatic categorization of each
proposal.
More information about the relevant research and analysis (R&A) focus areas and
Applied Sciences programs are may be found in A.1 The Earth Science Research
Overview, and are listed in table A.44-1.
Table A.44-1: List of ESD R&A Focus Areas, Applied Sciences Programs,
and Cross-Programmatic Emphases for self-declaration
R&A Focus Areas: Applied Sciences Cross-Programmatic
- Carbon Cycle and Programs: Emphases:
Ecosystems - Water Resources - Environmental
- Water and Energy - Health and Air Justice
Cycle Quality - Wildfires
- Climate Variability - Agriculture
and Change - Disasters
- Atmospheric - Capacity Building
Composition - Ecological
- Weather and Conservation
Atmospheric - Climate and
Dynamics Resilience
- Earth Surface and
Interior

Research that is interdisciplinary (e.g., topics included in the current Interdisciplinary

Research Program element or prior Interdisciplinary ROSES elements) or relevent to
multiple areas is acceptable, though a primary area of relevance must be self-declared
based on the table above. The Proposer will have the option to select a second area of
relevance, again corresponding to those listed in Table A.44-1, which will be used
informationally by CSDA for programmatic considerations.
This programmatic self-declaration must match the corresponding relevance narrative
within the S/T/M sections of both the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, as described in
Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.3.
4.3 Proposals Requesting NASA High-End Computing Resources
Interested proposers should consult ROSES A.1 Earth Science Research Overview,
Section 6.3 High-End Computing, Networking, and Storage; and the Summary of

A.43-4
Solicitation, Section I(e), for a summary of HEC offerings and guidance on requesting
computing time. This request only needs to be included with the Step-2 proposal.
4.4 Documenting Work Effort and Current and Pending Support
Work Effort and Current and Pending Support for PIs and Co-Is must be documented
using the templates available on the SARA webpage
(https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-for-earth-science-division-appendix-a-
roses-proposals). This is only required for the Step-2 proposal.
4.5 Data Management Plan
All Step-2 proposals must contain a data management plan (DMP), which must be
placed in a special section of the proposal, entitled "Data Management Plan." The DMP
may not exceed two pages in length and must immediately follow the references and
citations for the Scientific/Technical/Management Section of the proposal. The two-page
DMP section does not count against the 12-page limit of the Scientific/Technical/
Management Section. Formatting requirements for DMPs are the same as for the
Scientific/Technical/Management Section.
The DMP section must include the types of data and data products to be produced in
the course of the project, the standards to be used for data and metadata formats, and
plans for providing access to and/or archiving the data and other research products.
Please note that the DMP must be compliant with the terms and conditions of the
relevant EULAs, referenced in Section 3.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~ $3.2M per year
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending 17-22
adequate proposals of merit
Award duration 2 years
Due date for Step-1 Proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 Proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of
6 months after the Step-2 due date
investigation
Page limit for the entire Step-1 5 pages, see Section 4.1.1
proposal
Page limit for the central Science- 12 pages; see Section 4.1.3, above and Table 1
Technical-Management section of of ROSES-2022
Step-2 proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Earth science
strategic questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
of this solicitation

A.43-5
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of Contact concerning this
program all of whom share this
postal address:
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
See Section 4.1.3, above, Table 1 of ROSES-
2022, and A.1 the Earth Science Research
Program Overview.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted
https://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at 202-479-9376 or nspires-
help@nasaprs.com)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-CSDSA
Will McCarty
Email: will.mccarty@nasa.gov
Kathy Hibbard
Email: kathleen.a.hibbard@nasa.gov
Alfreda Hall
Email: alfreda.a.hall@nasa.gov and
Kevin Murphy
Email: kevin.j.murphy@nasa.gov
A.43-6
A.45 INSTRUMENT INCUBATOR PROGRAM
U

NOTICE: This program element will not be competed in ROSES-2022.

IIP was competed in ROSES-2021. It is anticipated that it will next be
solicited in ROSES-2023.
1. U Objectives
The Instrument Incubator Program (IIP) funds innovative technologies that lead directly
to new Earth observing instruments, sensors, and systems in support of SMD’s Earth
Science Division (ESD). The technologies and measurement concepts developed under
the IIP may extend up through field demonstrations, with a longer-term aim for infusion
into future ESD research and flight programs. The objectives of the IIP are to research,
develop, and demonstrate new measurement technologies that:
• Enable new or greatly enhance Earth observation measurements and
• Reduce the risk, cost, size, mass, and development time of Earth observing
instruments.
2. U Point of Contact
Parminder Ghuman
Earth Science Technology Office
Telephone: (301) 286-8001
Email: p.ghuman@nasa.gov
32TU U32T

A.45-1
A.46 ADVANCED COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY
NOTICE: Amended April 25, 2022. This Amendment releases the final
text for this program element, which had been "TBD". A preproposal
bidder's conference will be held Tuesday, May 17 at 1:00 PM Eastern
Time, Phone: 1-844-467-6272, Passcode: 831772. Notices of Intent are
requested by June 10 and proposals are due by July 26, 2022.
Proposers to this program element should not submit a data
management plan.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Introduction
The Advanced Component Technology (ACT) program seeks proposals for technology
development leading to new component-level as well as subsystem-level spaceborne
and/or airborne measurement techniques in support of the Science Mission
Directorate’s Earth Science Division. The ACT program is managed by NASA's Earth
Science Technology Office (ESTO). ESTO supports the development of a range of
advanced observation and information systems technologies to meet the demand of
future Earth science measurements and activities addressing the full scientific
measurement process. This includes, but is not limited to, instruments needed to make
specific observations, data systems, and information products that render observations
useful to the scientific community in a timely manner.
Emerging technologies, novel instrument architectures, and innovative platforms show
great promise for measuring Earth phenomena that have not been previously or
adequately characterized by conventional satellite instruments alone. Phenomena that
are transient, transitional, and/or dynamic in nature have been difficult to study using
traditional low Earth orbit (LEO) orbiting instruments due to insufficient temporal and/or
spatial sampling of such events. Inexpensive, high quality intelligent sensors and
platforms at higher orbits, or in a constellation and/or in a coordinated fashion, coupled
with new pointing, real-time data processing, and command capabilities, can now give
scientists the ability to selectively conduct observations focused on dynamic events of
interest. Emerging new instrument technologies coupled with new platform capabilities
and rapidly evolving information technologies could become the foundational
infrastructure of new observing systems that can dynamically react to rapidly changing
environmental conditions.
This ACT call seeks disruptive technology that involves higher risk, but also has the
potential for greater impact for the Earth Science community. These disruptive
technologies can come from inside or outside the traditional field of Earth Science
remote sensing. For every proposed component/subsystem, proposers must include a
description of the envisioned full instrument architecture, including relevant platform(s)
that could be appropriate, along with the science measurement(s) enabled, and then
describe the proposed critical component or subsystem and how the proposed
technology will fit into the larger instrument architecture. A description of how the
proposed technology is responsive to both goals of the ACT program, as described in
Section 1.2, is also required. Although this program element does not request software
development, proposers are asked to show, where appropriate, how innovations in

A.46-1
artificial intelligence, machine learning, onboard processing, etc. could augment the
proposed instrument architecture and/or could be used in the initial stages of the
component or subsystem design.
1.2 Goals of the Advanced Component Technology Program
The goals of the ACT program are to research, develop, and demonstrate component-
and subsystem-level technology development that:
• Enable or dramatically enhance Earth observation remote sensing
measurements in new, innovative ways.
• Reduce the size, weight, power requirements, development risks and time, and
cost of Earth science remote sensing observation systems.
For this program element, components are defined as the critical parts that comprise an
instrument subsystem. Consequently, subsystems are defined as a series of
interconnected components that comprise a part of an observational instrument or
system.
Proposers may find information about currently and previously funded technologies at
the Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) Website at http://esto.nasa.gov/.
1.3 Exclusions
No funding is available under the current announcement for:
Research and development of new instrument component technology for Designated
Observables (recommended by the 2017 Earth Science Decadal Survey
(https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24938) currently in formulation (Aerosols, Clouds,
Convection and Precipitation, Mass Change, and Surface Biology and Geology), unless
proposed work stands to advance associated measurement approaches well beyond
the measurement parameters identified for these observables in the Decadal Survey.
• unless these are substantially different from, and provide significant
improvement, over existing techniques.
• Technology components or subsystems that make airborne in-situ or ground-
based observations, unless they are critical components that enable innovative
spaceborne observing system architectures.
• Incremental improvements to existing components or subsystems.
1.4 Proposal Research Topics
This ACT program element solicits new component and subsystem-level technologies
to support future instrument developments addressing any of the science focus areas in
NASA’s Earth Science program (see ROSES-2022, A.1 the Earth Science Research
Program Overview for further description of the focus areas). The solicited new
technologies could enable new types of observations as well as measurement
techniques that improve NASA’s Earth Science program. Except the exclusions in
Section 1.3, technologies may target any Earth science measurement or issue in order
to advance strategic goals, questions, applications, and, most importantly, future
missions or observational architectures as outlined in Objective 1.1 of the NASA 2018
Strategic Plan, which can be accessed at http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-
strategy.

A.46-2
Proposers are encouraged to reference the 2017 Decadal Survey for science
measurement needs for the Explorer and Incubation Targeted Observables or current
scientific measurement needs for other Targeted Observables to understand technology
development needs for the following decade. If interested in responding to the Decadal
Survey Incubation Targeted Observables, proposers should review the Study Team
Reports posted at Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL) and Surface Topography and
Vegetation (STV) for technologies relevant to PBL or STV.
Proposals must describe how the ACT component or subsystem fits into a future NASA
Earth Science measurement system architecture and to provide potential alternatives to
perceived challenges and/or risks in the technology development. The ACT program
element seeks advances in any of the component technologies that enable new
measurement capabilities or allow current systems to increase their scientific utility by
providing new or enhanced capabilities for remote sensing applications beyond the
current state of the art. Proposed technologies should demonstrate their ability to
advance remote sensing measurement performance in addition to their viability to space
implementation. For technologies with an eventual operating environment targeted for
space, proposers should identify the development path to enable this. Priority will be
given to proposals that utilize the emerging technologies as discussed in the following
four paragraphs.
To increase spatial/temporal/spectral resolution for Earth science measurements
including the continued monitoring of a changing climate, there are stringent
requirements for reduced size, weight, and power (SWaP) along with demand for high
performance and low-cost modules that push technologies toward more compact and
integrated solutions. While this ACT call is open to all rapidly emerging technologies,
there is particular focus on instrument subsystems and components based on
integrated photonic circuits, quantum remote sensing, and metamaterials/metasurfaces
to push the frontier of technology development.
Some of the many advantages of photonic integrated circuit (PIC) components and
subsystems include increased bandwidth and beam size as well as immunity to
electromagnetic interference. Examples include integrated low-loss waveguides,
integrated photonics for system on a chip (SoC), integrated photonic circuits for RF
applications, and spectrometers, including detectors and readout integrated circuits
(ROICS) necessary for focal plane arrays (FPAs).
Similarly, the current rapid advances in quantum remote sensing offer the possibility of
a complete paradigm shift for the future of Earth science remote sensing. For example,
to advance radar remote sensing, a key challenge is to expand from a single RF band
to multiple bands covering the entire RF window (VHF to Ka band (50 MHz to 40 GHz))
which requires different configurations sensitive to amplitude, phase or polarization of
signals to enable vertical profiling with high accuracy, and high spatio-temporal
resolution. Furthermore, any new disruptive technology that employs the manipulation
of atoms/photons or uses quantum properties to specifically advance capabilities for
Earth science remote sensing is solicited.
NASA is also interested in leveraging advancements in the field of metamaterials and
metasurfaces to reduce SWaP and increase performance of components and

A.46-3
subsystems that will revolutionize the future of Earth science remote sensing
instruments both for active and passive remote sensing solutions. Deployable telescope
technologies that specifically use flat lens technologies for lidars are also solicited.
ESTO encourages proposers to investigate leveraging emerging technologies under
Internal Research and Development activities, Small Business Innovative Research
(SBIR) awards (http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov), as well as other research programs.
The proposed ACT activity is expected to have an entry Technology Readiness Level
(TRL) between 1 and 2 with an exit TRL between 3 and 4. It is the responsibility of the
proposer to justify the entry and exit TRL levels of the proposed technology. TRL
definitions can be found at: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf
The ACT Program will fund tasks at an appropriate level commensurate with the TRL
level proposed. Activities appropriate for the ACT program can include, but are not
limited to proof of concept, laboratory demonstrations, and advanced component or
subsystem hardware development.
2. Programmatic Information
This document provides requirements and details tailored to this specific program
element that supplement or supersede the default guidelines of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation and/or the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. See Section I (g) of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation regarding the order of precedence.
2.1 Proposal Content and Submission
2.1.1 Notice of Intent to Propose
Notices of Intent (NOI), as described in Section IV(b)vi of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, are strongly encouraged, but not
required.
2.1.2 Questions and Answers
Prospective proposers are requested to submit any questions in writing to
amber.emory@nasa.gov no later than 30 days before the proposal due date. Questions
and answers will be posted in a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) on the NSPIRES
page for this program element under "other documents." It is the proposer's
responsibility to check the NSPIRES page for this program element for possible updates
to any FAQ document or clarifications to the program element. Proposers who
subscribe to the SMD email distribution list in NSPIRES will receive an email if this
program element is amended.
3. Proposal Content
3.1 Proposal Summary (Abstract)
The NSPIRES web page requires proposers to fill in a text box with a proposal
summary of no more than 4000 characters. The proposal summary includes: (a)
objectives and benefits; (b) an outline of the proposed work and methodology; (c) the
period of performance; and (d) entry and planned exit Technology Readiness Level.

A.46-4
3.2 Scientific/Technical/Management Section
This section of the proposal must include the following content in subsections that use
the same titles. Failure to provide any of this material may be cause for the proposal to
be judged as noncompliant and returned without further review. The
Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) Section is limited to 15 non-reduced, single-
spaced typewritten pages. Standard proposal style formats shall be in accordance with
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Proposals
that exceed the 15-page limit may be returned without review. The S/T/M Section
includes items 1-6:
1. Applicability to Earth Science Measurements - Describe the benefits to future
Earth science (satellite, SmallSat, CubeSat, High Altitude Balloon/Pseudo-
Satellite, or Airborne) missions that could utilize the proposed technology.
Describe how the component or subsystem will improve the science
measurement (e.g., spectral, spatial, accuracy, precision, etc.) and describe its
importance. Include a one-page relevancy scenario showing how the proposed
technology contributes to one or more Earth science measurements.
2. Description of Proposed Technology - Provide a description of the proposed new
technology for an instrument system or subsystem. Define an overall instrument
architecture along with the science measurement(s) enabled or enhanced and
then describe how the proposed critical component or subsystem will fit into the
instrument architecture. Explain and justify how the proposed choice of
measurement platform enables science. Discuss any possible benefits to other
NASA Earth or Space Science activities or societal/commercial benefits.
3. Comparative Technology Assessment - Describe anticipated quantitative
advantages of this technology compared to those currently in use, e.g., reduction
in size, mass, power, volume, cost, improved performance, or enabling of a new
capability not previously possible. Reference the current state of the art and
relate it to the proposed work.
4. TRL Assessment - Proposers must define and substantiate the starting TRL for
the component and subsystem technology and the anticipated exit TRL or
success criteria for the proposed activity. The TRL must advance by at least one
level during the period of performance of the activity. If the proposed activity
duration is for multiple years, advancement of one TRL per year is desirable.
TRL definitions can be found here:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf
5. Research Management Plan - Proposers must provide a statement of work that
concisely describes each task and milestone to be accomplished during the
research and development. Define the success criteria associated with each task
or milestone. Also, include a chart of the schedule of the critical milestones. At
least two milestones per twelve-month period must be defined. Subcontracting
portions of the research project is acceptable, but overall management and
reporting are the responsibility of the proposing organization.
6. Personnel - Provide a list of key personnel and identify experience related to the
proposed activity. Proposers must include technology and instrument
development skills of the team. The key personnel list is included in the overall
page count and must include, as a minimum, the Principal Investigator (PI).

A.46-5
 Optionally, one-page resumes for Key Personnel may be supplied; these
resumes are not included in the 15-page limit for the S/T/M section.
The following components are also required, but are not part of the 15-page S/T/M
Section:
7. Facilities and Equipment - Describe significant facilities and equipment required
to complete the work. Before requesting funding to purchase a major item of
capital equipment, the proposer should determine if sharing or loan of equipment
already available within the proposing organization is a feasible alternative.
8. Special Matters - Proposers must include a brief description of the organization,
its facilities, and previous work experience in the field of the proposal. This is also
where any other relevant special concern of which NASA should be aware
should be identified.
9. Quad Chart – Provide a summary chart that contains the following:
• Upper Left Quadrant: "Objectives"
• Lower Left Quadrant: "Approach" and "Co-Is/Partners"
• Upper Right Quadrant: A visual, graphic, or other pertinent information
• Lower Right Quadrant: "Key Milestones" and "Entry TRL"
A template and example of the quad chart can be downloaded from
http://esto.nasa.gov/files/EntryQuad_instructions_template.ppt.
4. Evaluation Criteria
The three evaluation criteria, Relevance, Intrinsic Merit, and Cost Reasonableness are
defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the review is
implemented consistent with Section V(a) of the ROSES-22 Summary of Solicitation.
Clarifications and additions specific to this program element are listed below.
The first criterion, Relevance, includes the applicability of the proposed investigation to
Earth Science Focus Area(s) and other science measurement and technology needs.
Specifically, it includes:
• The proposal's relevance and potential contribution to this ACT program element,
including the potential to contribute to future Earth science instruments and the degree
to which the proposed investigation specifically supports the objective of at least one
of the Earth Science Focus Areas (see A.1 The Earth Science Research Overview for
a description of Earth Science Focus Areas);
• The potential for the component or subsystem level technology development to
significantly reduce the risk, cost, size, power, and development risk and/or time of
Earth science instruments or to enable new Earth science measurements. Potential
cost reductions should be clearly stated and substantiated to the extent possible with
supporting analysis that indicates scalability;
• The potential of the component or subsystem level technology to be integrated, once
matured, into an Earth science instrument system; and
• The potential for the component or subsystem technology development to have cross-
cutting or commercial benefits.

A.46-6
The second evaluation criterion, Intrinsic Merit, includes:
• Impact, significance, and feasibility of the proposed technical approach to achieve the
technology development objectives;
• Degree of innovation of the proposed technology development concepts and approach
that fulfill the goals of the ACT program;
• Proposals with technology developments outside the particular focus of this ACT
solicitation, described in Section 1.4, will be given equal consideration as long as it
has a high degree of innovation with promise of taking a revolutionary step in
reduction of SWaP and/or cost and/or significant increase in performance vs. state of
the art;
• Qualifications of key personnel and adequacy of facilities, staff, and equipment to
support the proposed activity as demonstrated by past performance and related
expertise in the proposed area of technology development, to ensure that the team
has strong technology development and instrument development skills;
• Substantiated justification and appropriateness of the entry and anticipated exit
technology readiness levels (TRL); and
• Feasibility of making the newly enabled measurement with the proposed component or
subsystem; and, feasibility of making a demonstrable TRL increase. The TRL must
advance by at least one (1) level during the performance period of the project.
The third criterion, Cost Reasonableness, includes:
• Adequacy and likelihood of meeting the proposed milestones and associated success
criteria;
• Reasonableness of accomplishing the work given the labor hours identified;
• Adherence to sound and consistent management practices appropriate to the TRL of
the proposed task; and,
• Commitment of the organization’s management to the proposed technology
development (evidenced by prior teaming arrangements, etc.). Proposers should
identify previous relevant investments by the organization/program and provide
supporting documentation.
5. Award Information
The Government’s obligation to make award(s) is contingent upon both the availability
of appropriated funds from which payment can be made and the receipt of proposals
that NASA determines are acceptable for award under this program element. No
additional funds beyond the negotiated award value will be available. NASA does not
allow for payment of profit or fee to commercial firms under grant awards, and few fees
are permitted (See http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs#16 for more
information).
5.1 Funding
The total funding available for this sub-element will limit the number and magnitude of
the proposals awarded. It is anticipated that a total of 10-12 proposals will be selected
and the value of each will be approximately $400K per year per proposal for a 3-year
proposal and approximately $600K per year for a 2-year proposal.

A.46-7
Voluntary cost sharing is welcome but neither required nor part of the evaluation. If a
cost sharing arrangement is agreed upon, appropriate data rights that recognize the
proposer’s contributions, as well as the Government’s rights to access, will be
negotiated prior to award. Please note that if the cost sharing contribution cannot be
met then the award amount may be reduced in proportion to the cost share not
provided. For more information on cost sharing, see Section 5.13.3 of the Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Manual, which may be found at
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocfo/gpc/regulations_and_guidance.
5.2 Period of Performance
The expected period of performance is a minimum of 12 months to a maximum of 36
months. Proposals must define clear, measurable milestones to be achieved for each
year of performance in order to warrant continuation in the second and third years.
5.3 Type of Award
All selected proposals will result in the award of grants, cooperative agreements, or
intra-Government transfers, as appropriate. Grants and cooperative agreements will be
subject to the provisions of the Grants and Cooperative Agreement Manual (GCAM)
and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. In the case of any conflict, the GCAM takes
precedence.
6. Technical Reporting Requirements
In addition to the agency reports for grants, a number of ESTO-specific reporting
requirements are detailed on the ESTO reporting requirements website. These
requirements, including semi-annual, annual, and final review presentations and the
ESTO Quad Chart, must be included in the proposal work plans.
7. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for Up to $4.8 M, see Section 5.1
first year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~ 10-12
adequate proposals of merit
Duration of awards Minimum 1 year/Maximum 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Propose (NOI)
Due date for delivery of See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
proposals
Planning date for start of
4-6 months after submission of proposal
investigation
Page length for the central 15 pp; See Section 3.2 of this program element,
Science-Technical-Management see also Table 1 of ROSES-22 and the Section 2
section of proposal of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
Relevance This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to the ACT Program

A.46-8

General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
preparation and submission of
proposals
Submission medium
Website for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Website for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact regarding this
program
are, by definition, relevant to NASA. (See Section 4
of this program element.)
See the ROSES-22 Summary of Solicitation.
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of ROSES-
2022.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES-22 Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com (Help Desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or 202-479-9376
http://grants.gov (Help Desk available at
support@grants.gov or 800-528-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ACT
Amber E. Emory
Science Mission Directorate
Earth Science Technology Office
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546
Telephone: 301-312-2448
Email: amber.emory@nasa.gov
A.46-9
A.47 IN-SPACE VALIDATION OF EARTH SCIENCE TECHNOLOGIES
U

NOTICE: The In-Space Validation of Earth Science Technologies

(InVEST) Program will not be competed in ROSES-2022. InVEST was
last competed in ROSES-2020. It is anticipated that this program
element will next be solicited in ROSES-2023.
1. U Objectives
There has been and continues to be a need for some new technologies to be validated
in space prior to use in a science mission. This is necessary because the space
environment imposes stringent conditions on components and systems, some of which
cannot be fully tested on the ground or in airborne systems. The In-space Validation of
Earth Science Technologies (InVEST) program element is intended to fill that gap.
Validation of Earth science technologies in space will help reduce the risk of new
technologies in future Earth science missions. This program seeks to advance the
readiness of existing Earth Science-related technology and reduce risks to future
missions through space flight validation.
2. U Point of Contact
Sachidananda Babu
Earth Science Technology Office
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546
Telephone: (301) 286-7304
Email: Sachidananda.r.babu@nasa.gov
32TU

A.47-1
A.48 SUSTAINABLE LAND IMAGING-TECHNOLOGY
NOTICE: Amended January 17, 2023. Due to budgetary constraints,
this program element has been withdrawn from (will not be solicited
in) ROSES-2022. This program may be solicited in ROSES-2023.
1. Scope of Program
The goals of the Sustainable Land Imaging-Technology (SLI-T) program are to
research, develop, and demonstrate new measurement technologies that improve upon
the Nation’s current land imaging capabilities while at the same time reduce the overall
program cost for future SLI measurements. The SLI-T program seeks to:
• Reduce the risk, cost, size, volume, mass, and development time for the next
generation SLI instruments, while still meeting or exceeding the current land
imaging program capabilities;
• Improve the temporal, spatial, and spectral resolution of SLI measurements; and
• Enable new SLI measurements that can improve the program’s operational
efficiency and reduce the overall costs of the Nation’s land imaging capabilities.
2. Point of Contact
Sachidananda Babu
Science Mission Directorate
Earth Science Technology Office
Email: Sachidananda.r.babu@nasa.gov

\
A.48-1
A.49 DECADAL SURVEY INCUBATION STUDY TEAMS
U

NOTICE: The Decadal Survey Incubation (DSI) program will not be

competed in ROSES-2022. NASA expects to initiate a call in ROSES-
2024.
1. Scope of Program
U

The 2017 decadal survey recommended the implementation of an incubation program

intended to accelerate the readiness of high-priority observables not yet feasible for
cost-effective flight implementation. The DSI program funds proposals for technology
development and related activities that support future development of the Planetary
Boundary Layer (PBL) and Surface Topography and Vegetation (STV)targeted
observables for the Science Mission Directorate’s Earth Science Division.
2. Point of Contact
U

Robert Bauer
Earth Science Technology Office
Telephone: (301) 286-1628
Email: robert.bauer@nasa.gov
33TU U33T

A.49-1
A.50 ADVANCED INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY
U

NOTICE: The Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST)

program will not be competed in ROSES-2022. It is anticipated that
AIST will be competed again in ROSES-2023.
1. U Objectives
The objectives of the Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST) program are to
identify, develop, and (where appropriate) demonstrate advanced information system
technologies which:
• Reduce the risk, cost, size, and development time of Earth Science Division (ESD)
space-based and ground-based information systems;
• Increase the accessibility and utility of science data; and
• Enable new observation measurements and information products.
2. U Program Description
NASA’s Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST) Program identifies,
develops, and supports the adoption of novel information systems as well as novel
computer science technologies that respond to future Earth Science’s needs in a 5-10-
year timeframe. This Earth Science Technology Office program employs an end-to-end
approach to evolve technologies – starting with systems for designing future
observation systems and strategies then methodologies for coordinating space assets
with models and ground assets, as well as algorithms and tools to fuse, analyze and
understand large amounts of diverse data and information with the goal of advancing
knowledge and data intelligence. Information provided to a nationwide community of
users will result in significant leaps of knowledge of Earth science dynamics that benefit
the global community.
With the New Observing Strategies (NOS) thrust, AIST optimizes measurement
acquisition using many diverse observing capabilities, collaborating across multiple
dimensions and creating a unified architecture. This includes utilizing Distributed
Spacecraft Missions (DSM) and diverse observations from multiple vantage points, as
well as inter-spacecraft communications and onboard analysis and decision making.
The AIST Analytic Collaborative Frameworks (ACF) thrust enhances and enables
focused science investigations by facilitating access, integration and understanding of
disparate datasets using groundbreaking visualization and analytics tools as well as
relevant computing environments. Finally, the Earth System Digital Twins (ESDT) thrust
develops technologies for integrated Earth Science frameworks that mirror the Earth
with state-of-the-art models and simulations, timely and continuous observations, and
analytic tools. This thrust will help develop systems for enabling near- and long-term
science and policy decisions.
3. Point of Contact
U

Jacqueline Le Moigne
Earth Science Technology Office
Telephone: (301) 286-8723
Email: Jacqueline.j.lemoigne-stewart@nasa.gov
20TU U20T

A.50-1
A.51 APPLICATIONS-ORIENTED AUGMENTATION FOR RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
NOTICE: Amended March 10, 2022. This amendment releases the final
text for this program element, which had been listed as "TBD". Neither
Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program
element. Proposals may be submitted at any time, though there are
limits on resubmissions, see Section 3 for details. Proposals may be
submitted through March 29, 2023, unless the funding available for
this element is exhausted, in which case an amendment will be posted
to this element on NSPIRES to inform the proposing community.
1. Scope of Program
The 2017 Decadal Survey of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and
Medicine (Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation
from Space), Recommendation 4.1 stated that NASA (along with NOAA, and USGS)
should reduce barriers to applied uses of remote-sensing research and seek a
structured approach to accelerate the transition of scientific research into societal
benefits. NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD) is looking to respond to this guidance in
a way that builds off the successful examples developed through the full suite of ESD
activities, especially those tied to both the Research and Analysis and Applied Sciences
(https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov) programs; similarly, ESD is looking to bring
enhanced knowledge of users’ needs and research topic interests back to the research
program. To meet this goal, these two ESD programs are collaborating to support
current R&A investigators in enabling them to work across the traditional boundaries
between research and applications by adding end-user and stakeholder engagement to
existing work to support “research to applications” and/or “applications to research”
activities. This effort is intended to develop the capacity of investigators to work with end
users. R&A will provide financial support and the Applied Sciences Program will provide
guidance and resources to help investigators work with end-users and direct their
research towards decision making applications.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 Eligibility
In order to propose an augmentation to a research and analysis proposal in response to
this program element, the proposer must have a research proposal that has been
selected for funding (hereinafter called the "parent award"), through any previous ESD
R&A solicitation. Proposals that have not yet been selected for funding are not
eligible.The parent award must have at least 18 months remaining in its period of
performance at the time of the submission of the proposal to this program element.
Previous ESD R&A solicitations include any from the six Focus Areas in R&A:
Atmospheric Composition, Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics, Climate Variability and
Change, Water and Energy Cycle, Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems, and Earth Surface
and Interior Focus Areas as well as the Commercial Satellite and Data Acquisition
Program, competed science teams for missions in their post-launch periods, and
interdisciplinary and/or cross-cutting programs within R&A (e.g. interdisciplinary
science, remote sensing theory, etc.).

A.51-1
Since this element calls for supplements to the existing award, the PI for the
supplement must be the same as the PI of the current award.
2.2 Funding, Award Type and Period of Performance
It is anticipated that the total available funding for the program will be up to $1M for one
year. The funds will be distributed across the different Earth Science Division Focus
Areas and Programs based on the requests received and the results of the peer review
to be carried out.
To diminish administrative burden on of such small supplemental awards, funds will be
awarded as augmentations to existing awards rather than as the creation of a new
award.
The period of performance for any applications-oriented augmentation to an R&A award
must be initiated prior to the end of the active task, and should be able to be completed
no later than six months after the scheduled completion of the core task.
3. Proposal Preparation and Submission
The Science/Technical/Management section of proposals is limited to 5 pages.
Proposals to this program element may be submitted at any time without any
preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1 proposal.
The NSPIRES page for this program element displays a "Proposals Due" date and, if
this program is not solicited in ROSES-2023, then this is the final due date. If this
program is solicited in ROSES-2023, then new proposals should be created in response
to that. However, those who have already started proposals that are not yet submitted
may submit them in response to this element even after ROSES-23 has been released.
There are restrictions related to duplicate proposals and resubmissions to this element:
o A PI may at most submit two distinct (different) proposals in this ROSES-22 open
period.
o A PI may resubmit the same or slightly modified proposal at most once in this
ROSES-22 open period.
o A proposal with more than 50% new content is counted as a new proposal and not a
resubmitted proposal.
Proposals must describe how the team will engage with, and include end-user, or
stakeholder communities, in the augmentation effort and must clearly explain how the
proposed work will address stakeholder interests in their studies. Proposers are
required to identify the end-users/stakeholders in their augmentation request, explain
how their proposed augmentation will help the proposers support stakeholder interests
and requirements, and co-develop solutions with those stakeholders. Letters of support
or collaboration from end-users or stakeholders are encouraged. End-users or
stakeholders are defined as organizations that can utilize Earth science information,
model outputs, and other products to inform their decision making activities and
resulting actions.
Proposers must allocate time to participate in periodic calls/virtual meetings with R&A
and/or Applied Sciences staff members or their designees, as well as with others
selected in response to this announcement to share lessons learned, best practices,

A.51-2
and other topics that may facilitate the successful addition of an applications-oriented
component to what was previously a research-focused activity. Such meetings/calls will
be approximately every two months for no more than two hours at a time. There may be
some limited preparation work expected of the investigators in between the calls/virtual
meetings. Proposers should also consider the time and travel that will be required to
engage with end-users as part of the proposal and reflect that in the associated budget.
4. Proposal Review and Selection
Proposals will be subjected to a compliance check. Proposals that are not connected to
an eligible parent award, see Section 2.1, or do not adhere to ROSES formatting
restrictions, see Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, may be returned
without review.
Proposals will be evaluated against the three evaluation criteria: Intrinsic Merit,
Relevance, and Cost, as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and as described in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
As part of the evaluation of Intrinsic Merit, additional factors on the quality of the
connection to stakeholders and the nature of the connection between the originally-
proposed research task and the applications-oriented augmentation described in the
proposal will be considered.
Proposals that are rated highly will be considered for funding at one or more times prior
to the close of the call until such time as all the money identified for this opportunity has
been allocated.
5. Summary Table of Key Information
Expected program budget for first year of $1.0M
new awards
Number of new awards pending ~8-12
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 12 months
Due date for proposals Proposals may be submitted at any time
until 11:59 pm Eastern time on March 29,
2023
Planning date for start of investigation Typically, no earlier than 6 months after
the proposal submission date
Page limit for the central 5 pages; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Science/Technical/Management section Summary of Solicitation.
of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Earth
science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant
to this program are, by definition, relevant
to NASA.
General information and overview of this See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
solicitation

A.51-3
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the submission
of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal via
the NASA Solicitation and Proposal
Integrated Review and Evaluation
System (NSPIRES)
Web site for submission of proposal via
Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program, both of whom share the
following postal address:
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
A.51-4
See A.1 the Earth Science Research
Program Overview, and Section IV and
Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
202-479-9376)
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or 800-518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-AA4RA
R&A:
Kathy A. Hibbard
Science Mission Directorate
Telephone: 202-358-0682
Email: Kathleen.A.Hibbard@nasa.gov
Applied Sciences:
Laura Rogers
Science Mission Directorate
Telephone: 757-690-6022
Email: laura.j.rogers@nasa.gov
A.52 EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE FOR BUILDING COASTAL RESILIENCE
U

NOTICE: Proposals to this program element must provide a Data

Management Plan and Software Development Plan, see Section 3
1. U Background
Climate change impacts all aspects of the Earth and human systems ( IPCC AR6 ) and 30TU U30T

the highly-populated coastal communities are among those experiencing its most
disruptive consequences. Extreme weather events on land, loss of wetlands, rising
oceans and other direct human-induced changes threaten coastal communities,
ecosystems, national and global economies, including America’s trillion-dollar coastal
property market and public infrastructure. For example, higher seas increase the risk of
coastal flooding to communities and will potentially expose more than 300 million people
to flooding risk by 2050 across the globe. Once in contact with land, rising and changing
ocean exacerbates land loss through coastal erosion and land subsidence; saltwater
can infiltrate and interact with groundwater aquifers as well as mix with surface water
resulting in the loss of freshwater supplies. Furthermore, land changes from human
activities such as groundwater/hydrocarbon extraction/injection, levee construction,
river/sediment management, and urban development can have compounding effects
with the naturally-occurring land processes such as tectonics, sediment compaction,
erosion, carbonate dissolution/sink holes, with each process modifying the land surface
elevation and coastal geomorphology and thus further impacting the land-ocean
interface. Combined, these complex and interconnected ocean-land processes impact
coastal biogeochemistry and ecology, affect ecosystem structure and function, and
threaten biodiversity.
Recognizing the importance and urgency of coastal challenges, multiple inter-agency,
national, and international initiatives are addressing the need to increase the resilience
of the nation’s coastal communities. These include efforts by the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) and the Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology
(SOST) recent Coastal Resilience workshop , the White House National Climate Task
30T 30T 30T

Force , the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR), the U.S. Global Change
30T

Research Program, particularly its coastal efforts ( USGCRP ), the Committee on Earth
30T 30T

Observation Satellites (CEOS) Coastal Observations Applications Services and Tools

( COAST ), the Global Ocean Observing System ( GOOS ), as well as programs
30T 30T 30T 30T

contributing the UN Decade of the Ocean for Sustainable Development and the Sendai
30T 30T 30T

Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 . 30T

Satellite-based Earth observations are critical to understanding and predicting coastal

environments that undergo natural and human-induced changes. Understanding both
direct and indirect human-induced changes is equally important in informing studies of
coastal resilience. The research solicited through this program will further support
priorities of the relevant aforementioned initiatives, and will provide the foundational
information and evidence-based knowledge that will help inform solutions to increase
resilience of coastal communities.

A.52-1
2. Scope of Program
The goal of this solicitation is to advance our understanding of key physical, biological,
biogeochemical, geological, and hydrological coastal processes and their interactions
within the interface of the ocean-land-human system, and to enhance our understanding
of how these processes will be compounded in rapidly changing coastal environments.
To be eligible, proposals to this element must substantively utilize space-based and/or
airborne remote sensing data in all studies. Proposals must include an interdisciplinary
team of a minimum two and preferably more Co-Investigators from different science
disciplines, such as coastal geology and geodesy, hydrology, ocean physics, biology
and biogeochemistry, with the ultimate goal of advancing the science objectives to be
considered in this solicitation. Proposers must also provide a rationale for their
proposed efforts, and explain the importance of such choices within the coastal
resilience context.
It is envisioned that the proposed efforts will address one or both of the following tasks:
• Exploration of the underlying physical, biological, and geological mechanisms
within the ocean-land framework and potential feedback processes and impacts
on coastal ecosystems. Examples of coupled coastal processes may include but
are not limited to: (i) impacts of human activity on coastal physical,
geomorphological and ecological variability; (ii) sea level rise, coastal
erosion/retreat, and salt-water intrusion, and their impacts on ecosystems; (iii)
linkages between ocean dynamics and land subsidence and its impacts on
coastal ecosystems; (iv) the role of urban development on land subsidence and
coastal ecosystems; biophysical coupling and feedbacks within the ocean-land
interface; (v) impacts of coastal hazards related to climate extremes, such as
storms and heat waves, on biogeophysical aspects of the coast; etc.
• Integration of existing and upcoming observational and modeling assets into a
conceptual or (better) digital ocean-land framework that enables the dynamical
coupling of key processes within the ocean-land interface. Highest priority will be
given to frameworks that will advance our understanding and better prediction of
most-rapidly changing coastal processes, e.g., novel dynamical coupling of
geodesy, hydrology, and ocean physics with measurable implications for ecology
and ecosystems.
The proposed investigations should be of regional (beyond local, 1,000+ km) focus,
preferably in areas of high potential population growth, e.g. U.S. East, West, or Gulf
coasts, Island Nations, and other low-lying regions across the globe that are impacted
by climate change and/or socio-economic disadvantages. Proposals must provide a
rationale for their region of choice and explain the importance of such choices within a
global context.
Science results and products are expected to be scalable and transferable, and have
the potential to be applied in similar coastal environments globally. While a specific
research-to-application aspect is not solicited or requested here, proposers are
encouraged to provide motivation behind proposed objectives with a potential
application in mind, and/or articulate how proposed research could help the
development of practical solutions to increase resilience of coastal communities.

A.52-2
It is strongly encouraged that proposals leverage and build upon relevant NASA
programs as well as efforts within other Federal Agencies (e.g., NOAA, FEMA, USGS,
NSF, DOD, DOE, DOI, etc.) as we all international entities that invest in the topic of
coastal resilience.
3. Data, Tools, and Other Requirements
Extensive use of NASA satellite observations and data products is required in all
studies. The use of remote sensing data from non-NASA missions, such as data
acquired by the European Union Copernicus program and ScanSAR data from the
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency ALOS-1 and ALOS-2 PALSAR instruments -
available at the Alaska Satellite Facility DAAC – as well as the use of Commercial
SmallSat Data Acquisition Program ( CSDAP ) at no cost to PI, is allowed. When
30T 30T

appropriate, proposers are encouraged to use airborne and in situ observations

collected through prior and ongoing NASA-supported projects and campaigns (e.g.,
DeltaX, S-MODE, SWOT cal/val, UAVSAR, CORAL). Investigations that integrate
information from future NASA missions that can be relevant for coastal research
(SWOT, NISAR, PACE, GLIMR, SBG, SDC) and rely on synthetic or simulated data are
welcome.
Proposers are also encouraged to build upon already-developed existing products and
data integration frameworks, including those developed within the NASA Sea Level
30T

Change Team (e.g., sea level evaluation and assessment tool, IPCC projection tool,
30T

estimates of vertical land motion), data products developed as part of Satellite Needs
30T 30T

Working Group activities, ECCO framework adapted for coastal studies including
30T 30T

biochemical and physical modules, etc.

In general, the collection of new field and airborne data is not solicited, unless
advantageous opportunities arise, e.g., by augmenting existing campaigns, leveraging
shared-cost opportunities, etc. In such cases, field and airborne data collection under
modest funding support (no more than 20% of the total cost of the investigation) would
be appropriate. Processing of already-collected samples must be appropriately
budgeted in the proposal.
NASA expects to host a mandatory workshop at the end of the award performance
period to share achievements of the selected investigations with a broader science
community and partner agencies with similar research interests in coastal resilience. As
such, proposers must include appropriate budget and time efforts to participate in a
mandatory workshop during the third year of the investigation; for planning purposes,
PIs should budget for a four day trip to the farthest coast.
Data, model results, and other information created under this announcement are subject
to NASA's Earth Science Data policy and will be evaluated as one of the scorable
metrics during the proposal evaluation process. Proposals must provide a Data
Management Plan (DMP) of up to two pages in length, immediately following the
references and citations for the Science/Technical/Management section of the proposal.
See Section 1.1 of A.1 the Earth Science Research Overview for more information on
the DMP, which is now a standard element of most proposals.

A.52-3
Proposals must also provide a Software Development Plan (SDP), of up to two pages in
length, immediately following the DMP. The SDP must include a description of software
to be produced during the funded research and version control processes. The SDP
must also identify an open source software license to be used, state open source
software release milestones, and any legal issues involved in the software components,
e.g., ITAR; a software release schedule; software distribution and archiving, e.g.,
GitHub; budget description for software development, documentation, distribution,
publication, and maintenance, (e.g., a week of PI time at the end of the project to
update the GitHub repository). Those that would not develop software should simply
indicate that in lieu of the SDP.
Proposers are encouraged to plan and budget to publish their work as Open Access, to
enhance open knowledge sharing and result dissemination.
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~ $2.5M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending 5-8
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
30T 30T 30T 30T

propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
30T 30T 30T 30T

Planning date for start of

investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance to NASA
General information and overview
of this solicitation
Detailed instructions for the
6 months after proposal due date
15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and the Guidebook for Proposers.
This program is relevant to the Earth science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , the NASA
30T 30T 30T

preparation and submission of Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) of 30T

proposals the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.

Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
Web site for submission of http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
30T 30T

proposal via NSPIRES at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-

30T 30T

9376)
Web site for submission of http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
30T 30T

proposal via Grants.gov support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)

30T 30T

A.52-4
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program, all of whom share the
same address:
NNH22ZDA001N-COAST
Nadya Vinogradova Shiffer
Telephone: (202) 358-0976
Email: nadya@nasa.gov
30T

Earth Science Division Gerald Bawden

Science Mission Directorate Telephone: (202) 358-3922
NASA Headquarters Email: gerald.w.bawden@nasa.gov
30T 30T

Washington, DC 20546-0001 Laura Lorenzoni

Telephone: (202) 358-1709
Email: laura.lorenzoni@nasa.gov
30T 30T

A.52-5
A.53 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT FOR SUPPORT OF WILDFIRE SCIENCE, MANAGEMENT,
AND DISASTER MITIGATION

NOTICE: Amended June 10, 2022. This Amendment releases the final
text for this program element, which previously had been "TBD". Step-
1 proposals may be submitted at any time but will be reviewed
quarterly starting with those submitted by August 2, 2022, see Section
2. Only those who are invited may submit Step-2 proposals, see
Section 2. No Data Management Plan is required. Step-2 proposals
must include the ESTO Quad Chart and other non-standard elements,
see Section 2.2.1 and Table A.53-2.
1. Scope of Program
NASA's Earth Science Division (ESD) is prioritizing improvements in the prediction,
management, and the understanding of overall impacts of wildfires within the United
States and around the world. ESD’s Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO), through
coordination with the division’s Applied Sciences and Research and Analysis elements,
the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD), and the Small Business
Innovative Research (SBIR) program, is introducing this new program element,
Technology Development for Support of Wildfire Science, Management, and Disaster
Mitigation, or "FireTech", to seek new, innovative Earth system observation capabilities
to predict and manage wildfires and their impacts.
Recent reports from the Environmental Protection Agency have helped quantify the
rapidly growing problem of wildfires in the U.S. The total burned area during summer
months increased from about 250,000 hectares for the period 1984-2000, to over
650,000 hectares in the following 20 years. Costs for wildfire suppression have
increased from $500 million in 1985 to $3 billion today, with inflation-adjusted losses
due to wildfires increasing from an average of $30 million in the 1980s to $1 billion
today. In response, the Biden Administration has tasked the federal agencies with a
whole-of-government approach to climate security, with wildfire management as a
priority. In August 2021, the NASA Administrator announced a new Agency wildfire
initiative that would "...draw from our satellite and airborne observations, our eyes in the
sky…The technology will develop data-driven tools to support the heroes who are
fighting the fires. And they’re trying to prevent the next fire."
In response, the ESD will establish the Wildland FireSense Project, which will
consolidate science objectives and NASA applications toward a broad set of wildfire
management objectives. The project will work closely with interagency partners such as
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Forestry Service, the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the National Interagency Fire
Center, and others. The overarching goal of the project is to contribute NASA resources
in such a manner that the end-to-end management of wildfires in the U.S. is improved,
with an expectation of global impact. Over the next 5-6 years, a series of airborne field
campaigns is being planned for which the technology investments under this program
element (see Section 1.2) will be implemented and tested, culminating with a capstone
mission to demonstrate the investments and their contribution to progress in wildland

A.53-1
fire management. To achieve its goals, the project will make use of broad capabilities in
instrument and information technology, along with new observing platforms in space, in
the air, and on the ground.
1.1 Background and Program Element Justification
The following documents identify the relevant missions, measurements, strategies, and
programs for this program element:
• The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017-2027
Decadal Survey for Earth Science Applications from Space may be accessed on
the web at https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work-decadal-survey-for-
earth-science-and-applications-from-space. This report is hereinafter referred as
the "Decadal Survey."
• The new NASA Science Plan, "Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific
Excellence," and the NASA Strategic Plan may be found
at https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy.
• Outcomes from the NASA Science Mission Directorate Wildfire Stakeholder
Engagement Workshop may be accessed at http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/smdwildfire.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021. Airborne
Platforms to Advance NASA Earth System Science Priorities: Assessing the
Future Need for a Large Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26079.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2022. Wildland
Fires: Toward Improved Understanding and Forecasting of Air Quality Impacts:
Proceedings of a Workshop (2022) -
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/26465
New technologies play a key role in enabling many of the measurements recommended
in the Decadal Survey and helping to reduce the cost of other measurements. Using the
FireTech element, NASA will facilitate the implementation of the recommended
measurements by carefully choosing where to invest in flight validation of systems,
including relevant information system technologies, and small instruments using small
satellites (<180kg) or hosted payloads to ensure the greatest benefit from NASA’s
technology development funds.
A major goal of the Wildland FireSense project is to demonstrate improved wildfire
management through the use of novel suborbital platforms. Through close coordination
with ARMD, the project intends to demonstrate new observation capabilities through the
use of next-generation platforms that will enable high resolution measurements while
effectively “staring” at critical targets for days to months. These platforms, such as the
High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) fixed-wing aircraft and the High Altitude Platform
System (HAPS), will complement the conventional NASA airborne fleet. In addition to
high-altitude aircraft, the project may also make use of various types of Unmanned
Aircraft System (UAS) platforms. Power and mass limitations for instrument payloads on
these platforms are summarized in Table A.53-1 below. Miniaturization of instruments to
maximize the usefulness of the new airborne platforms, as well as small spacecraft, is
supported under this program element.

A.53-2
 Table A.53-1. Power/Mass Restrictions for New Suborbital Platforms
Aircraft Type Mass Limitation Power Limitation
Small Fixed Wing 5kg 50W
Large Fixed Wing 50kg 120W
Large Airship 68kg 1000W
Balloon 36kg 80-100W
Small UAS (low altitude) 2kg 50W
1.2 Proposal Research Topics
This program element seeks ideas that span observation and information system
technologies that:
• Enhance capabilities of existing science instruments needed for monitoring pre-
fire, active-fire, and post-fire environments;
• Reduce mass and power of instruments for accommodation by next-generation
small spacecraft and aerial platforms;
• Enable unprecedented measurements from multiple vantage points through
model-directed, coordinated observations using autonomous tasking;
• Address computational challenges for modeling and for data acquisition, fusion,
and processing in a real-time environment;
• Facilitate machine learning and artificial intelligence to create new data products
needed for wildfire management and for management of the constellation of
observing platforms;
• Enable the seamless exchange of information between spaceborne, airborne,
and in situ assets.
The research topics are sub-divided into the lifecycle stages of wildfires: Pre-Fire, Active
Fire, and Post-Fire. With the stated goal of the FireSense Project to achieve technology
infusion into field campaigns of the 2020s, proposers should focus on mid- to high-TRL
projects.
1.2.1 Pre-Fire Topics
In the pre-fire environment, critical information on vegetative biomass and boundary
layer conditions are needed for successful execution of prescribed fires and for wildfire
risk assessment. Improved information is needed as input to fire spread models upon
ignition as well as to improve downwind air quality. This includes, but is not limited to:
• Boundary layer height, wind vectors, and humidity
• Lightning
• Fuel structure and composition (vegetation type, height, cover)
• Fuel moisture
• Organic debris (deep duff)
• Soil moisture / hydrology
• Forest composition, canopy water status, and health
• Human infrastructure (structures, power lines, etc.)
There are numerous data products that currently support pre-fire situational awareness
(e.g., the Global Wildfire Information System (GWIS), LANDFIRE, and others).

A.53-3
For the pre-fire environment, the pre-fire topic seeks improvements to existing data
products to achieve better resolution and accuracy over current state-of-the-art. For
fuels, enhanced understanding of fuel types is desired (e.g., organic soils, deep duff,
agriculture vs. brush, etc.). For the information types (bullet) listed above, and for others
that may be relevant, proposers are encouraged to augment existing products,
particularly from NASA sources, with other satellite, airborne, and/or ground data
sources and/or new data types that may exist elsewhere, such as from research
campaigns or from commercial products. This solicitation also encourages the use of
either new or off-the-shelf applications of machine learning for the generation of new
data products, along with uncertainty quantification of such methods.
In addition to improved data products from existing sources, the pre-fire topic also seeks
improved measurements from new vantage points, possibly from multiple platforms, as
discussed above. Considerations for the pre-fire environment include, but are not limited
to:
• Passive optical instruments, such as multispectral or hyperspectral imagers to
determine fuel types, fuel loading, and fuel moisture status
• Active sensing instruments, such as lidar or SAR, for characterizing forest
structure and the boundary layer
• Satellite and airborne data from NASA and other sources to characterize forest
health
• Model-directed or coordinated measurements from multiple platforms (per
ESTO’s New Observing Strategy)
New data products, or measurements made from new sensors, should also be targeted
at improving probabilistic forecasts to assess fire risk. Numerical modeling of the pre-fire
environment is important for the characterization and prediction of the potential fire
spread for land management and for both prescriptive and unplanned burns that may
become uncontrolled. Complete wildfire models commonly used by the community
include the Weather Research and Forecasting prediction system (WRF-SFIRE) and
the Coupled Atmosphere – Wildland Fire Environment (CAWFE), among others.
Proposers may also address computational techniques or the introduction of new
physical parameterizations that might improve the existing models in the
characterization of the pre-fire environment. NASA’s Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction
(MAP) program supports a number of earth system models for use in research
activities.
1.2.2 Active Fire Topics
Proposals targeted at the active fire environment should identify a stakeholder such as
a federal, state, or local agency that is engaged in operational fire management.
Additionally, a letter of affirmation from an agency involved in wildfire management
operations attesting to the significance or positive impact of the proposed project is
strongly recommended to be included in the proposal.
The active fire topic seeks technologies that support real-time applications for
management of active fires. Important challenges for fire managers include, but are not
limited to:
• Early detection and characterization of fire with improved instrumentation

A.53-4
 • Improved data products and improved methods for product distribution for use by
fire managers
• Improved modeling of the active fire environment
• Construction of digital twins of the active fire environment.
For early detection of fire and real-time perimeter mapping, inadequacy of the current
data products presents a key challenge. Existing satellite-based products from VIIRS,
MODIS, and GOES provides regular coverage for fire managers, however these lack
either the spatial or the temporal resolution needed by fire managers. Real-time, precise
geolocation of detections is needed, particularly in the wildland-urban interface (WUI),
from ground-based cameras, thermal imagers or other types of detection from sub-
orbital and orbital platforms, or from combined sources of existing information.
For active fires, improved technologies are needed for fire managers to accurately place
the fire edge, particularly in the presence of dense smoke, using thermal imagers or
other types of detection from sub-orbital or orbital platforms. Better observations of the
fire front and smoldering fuels behind the fire front are crucial to support fire
suppression efforts and improve estimates of fire emissions and air quality impacts from
large fire events. Enhancements to fire science are also needed, particularly for
understanding conditions under which pyrocumulonimbus clouds form and collapse,
which can assist in fire management and public safety. Modeling of the active fire
environment can be improved by assimilation of new data products that characterize
both the boundary layer and the mesoscale environment. For models to be more useful
for fire managers, improvements in their ability to predict the spread of active fire need
to be made, particularly in the WUI, where the characterization of fuels in the human
environment is lacking. Fire spread parameterizations used by existing wildfire models
often rely on old data or coarse-scale data products, and the capability for such models
to improve fire spread predictions may benefit from new and emerging analytical
techniques, such as machine learning. These techniques could be particularly useful for
prediction of fire spread in complex terrains. Current models also lack sufficient
performance to be useful to many active fire managers. New computational techniques
are needed to provide leapfrog speedups in delivering forecasts at the resolutions
needed for successful fire tracking and spread forecasting.
Data interoperability is a major challenge in the active fire environment. Products used
by fire managers occur in a variety of formats, in some cases based on ad hoc
definitions and product standards. Streamlining critical information will require a
coordinated effort across agencies, such that existing products can be harmonized with
new measurements from NASA sub-orbital and orbital assets. In this regard, proposals
are sought that would design and eventually develop a real-time digital twin of the active
fire environment. For purposes of this FireTech call, a digital twin is defined as “an
integrated multi-physics, multiscale digital replica of the fire environment, that considers
all active nodes of that environment (i.e., the complete states of observing assets,
prediction models, control of communication states between assets, locations of ground
personnel and other fire management assets, etc.), such that the ability to run
hypothetical scenarios to assess the impact of real-time decisions can be ascertained".
Digital twins are currently being developed under ESTO’s Advanced Information

A.53-5
Systems Technology (AIST) program, and proposers are encouraged to leverage active
digital twin projects as necessary.
1.2.3 Post-Fire Topics
For the post-fire environment, key technology gaps exist in the understanding of:
• Change in the vegetation state
• Landslides
• Flooding due to excessive runoff from burn scars
• Impacts to watersheds
• Fire-impacted invasive species
• Effective vegetative restoration
• Impacts to air and water quality
For vegetation, proposers should consider the challenge of identifying the overarching
impact of severe wildfires on vegetation canopy at timescales from days to months.
These timescales are also important for understanding the impact of fire-adapted
invasive species on the natural ecosystem, as well as for characterizing the impact of
vegetation regrowth on water infiltration and downstream water supplies. To achieve the
needed observations, proposers should consider new observations which might
complement existing sources of data, along with the sub-orbital and orbital platforms
mentioned above. These observations might include hyperspectral imagery or lidar
measurements to examine updated fuel loads resulting from tree mortality and post-fire
vegetation recovery, as well as changes to topography.
Improvements to existing models in the post-fire environment are needed. Models that
predict future vegetation change, soil erosion, flash flooding, and water quality are
important. Proposers are encouraged to consider a digital twin of the post-fire
environment that can link the output from land models to models of socioeconomic
impact and decision support systems.
2. Submission Guidelines
To capture a broad spectrum of ideas in support of wildfire management, this program
element will allow proposers to make submissions at any time through the use of a
binding two-step proposal submission process, described in Section IV(b) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and below. In brief, a Step-1 proposal, submitted
by the organization, is required and only those who are invited to do so may submit a
Step-2 proposal (please note that for this element NSPIRES refers to the sequence of
proposals as “first step” and “second step”).
In the two-step process a Step-1 proposal is required. Potential reviewers are solicited
based on the Step-1 proposal. Funded investigators (and all Co-Is) may not be changed
between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, unless prior approval is obtained from one of
the Program Officers of the element. The title and broad science goals of the proposal
may not be changed such that they would significantly affect the scientific or technical
expertise required to properly evaluate a proposal. Significant changes in a proposal
that may impact the review will result in a proposal being declared non-compliant.

A.53-6
Step-1 proposals will be peer reviewed, and only those who are invited may submit a
Step-2 proposal. The required format (font size, margins etc.) is given in Section IV(b)ii
of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. The required content of proposals is
described below. Submission of the Step-1 proposal does not obligate the offerors to
submit a Step-2 (full) proposal later.
Proposers are advised to keep current with amendments to ROSES-2022 by, for
example, subscribing to appropriate NSPIRES mailing lists (by logging in and checking
the appropriate boxes under "Account Management" and "Email Subscriptions"), using
the Google calendars, or referring to the ROSES-22 blog.
2.1 Step-1 Proposals
A Step-1 proposal, submitted by the organization’s Authorized Organizational
Representative, is required and may be submitted at any time but must be submitted
electronically by the Step-1 due date given directly below to be included in the
corresponding quarterly review. No budget or other elements are required for the Step-1
proposal.
Step-1 Submission Corresponding Anticipated Step-2 Anticipated Award
Date Review Invitation Date Start Date
August 2, 2022 Summer/Fall 2022 October, 2022 February, 2023
November 2, 2022 Fall/Winter 2022 January, 2023 May, 2023
February 2, 2023 Spring 2023 May, 2023 August, 2023
Thereafter, submit via ROSES-2023 to be released February 14, 2023.
Submission of a Step-1 Proposal is a prerequisite and only those who are invited may
submit a full Step-2 proposal. Those who are invited to submit a Step-2 proposals will
receive instructions how to submit in their invitation letter.
The expected format is described below. Submission of the Step-1 proposal does not
obligate the offerors to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal later.
2.1.1 Step-1 Proposal Format and Content
The Step-1 proposal is restricted to the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on
the NSPIRES web interface cover pages. References and any other supporting material
are not required, but, if included, must fit within the limit.
The Step-1 proposal must include the following information:
• The lifecycle stage(s) of wildfire management to be addressed by the proposal
(pre-fire, active-fire, post-fire);
• List of team members and their expertise, including a wildland fire expert
• Identification of targeted stakeholders, as appropriate;
• A listing of the data analysis methodology and any models or simulations to be
used;
• A brief statement of the relevance of the problem to the goals of the mission(s)
and how the investigation might benefit a wildfire airborne field campaign.
No attachments are permitted for Step-1 proposal submission. Proposers will be notified
by email and via NSPIRES whether they are "invited" and thus able to submit their
Step-2 proposals.

A.53-7
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of experts
qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the institutions of the
PI or Co-Is. This information can be supplied via email to the program officers in Section
6 at the time of submission of the Step-1 proposal. Following submission of the Step-1
proposal, a review will be conducted by panels on a quarterly basis, or sooner if budget
is available.
2.2 Step-2 Proposals
Only proposers who have been invited may submit a “full” Step-2 proposal. Step-2
proposals, which will have a Scientific/Technical/Management section of no more than
15 pages, must be submitted electronically following instructions provided in the
invitation from the program officer. The Step-2 proposal must be submitted by the
organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). A budget and other
specified information (see Section 2.2.1 and Table A.53-2) is required.
Because potential reviewers are solicited based on the Step-1 proposal, the team
members may not be changed between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, unless prior
approval is obtained from the Program Officer of the element. The title and broad
science goals of the proposal may not be changed such that they would significantly
affect the scientific or technical expertise required to properly evaluate a proposal.
Significant changes in a Step-2 proposal that may impact the review will result in a
proposal being declared non-compliant.
Step-2 proposals may not be submitted without a Step-1 submission and subsequent
invitation. Proposals that don’t result in an invitation will receive a response.
2.2.1 Step-2 Proposal Format and Content
Step-2 proposals are submitted by invitation only, and they comprise the elements of a
full ROSES proposal subject to the normal rules and requirements for proposals as
described in A.1, the Earth Science Research Overview, ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation, or the Guidebook. The following topics must be addressed in additional to
the default requirements per A.1:
A. Scientific/Technical/Management Section: This section is limited to 15
nonreduced, single-space pages. Any text beyond the 15th page will not be
provided to the reviewers (please note that items B-E below are additional ESTO
requirements, and not part of the 15-page limit). As part of the standard material
for this section, include a description of the applicability to Wildland FireSense
Project Objectives (e.g., a relevancy scenario that describes how the proposed
technology could address the problems described in Section 1, above).
Proposers should consider how the technology (see Section 1.2) would be
transitioned to a field campaign in support of one or more of the wildfire lifecycle
topics. Collaborators or Co-Is who are Earth Science researchers familiar with
NASA’s Earth Science programs and/or representatives of the target recipient
community are highly encouraged. Endorsement from the wildfire management
community is very important.
B. In addition to the Scientific/Technical/Management section, please include the
following technology-specific items:

A.53-8
 • What is the technology innovation (e.g., Section 1.2) being proposed?
Provide a detailed description of the proposed work, its goals and objectives,
the proposed approach, the main FireTech innovation(s), how it would be
applied to the proposed relevancy scenario.
• Comparative technology assessment: Describe the anticipated advantages of
the proposed technology compared to those currently in use, or enabling of a
new capability not previously possible. Describe the current state-of-the-art,
identify other competing technologies or efforts and compare it to the
proposed effort. Please note any potential for the technology to have
commercial benefits.
C. Include a 1-page Work Plan, to include clear, measurable, milestones throughout
the project, including ESTO reporting requirements (see Table A53.3, below;
further information is available on the ESTO web site).
D. Immediately following the Work Plan, the Step-2 proposal shall contain an ESTO
Quad Chart. A template and example of the quad chart can be downloaded from
http://esto.nasa.gov/files/EntryQuad_instructions_template.ppt. It should contain
no more than four key milestones.
E. Immediately following the Quad Chart, the proposal shall include a TRL Entry and
anticipated Exit TRL Table that lists the subsystems or components to be
developed, their TRLs and a brief justification for each.
The table below identifies the required proposal sections and the corresponding
source/citation for additional information. Proposals that do not adhere to these
requirements may be returned without review. No data management plan is requested.
However, if an award is made the standard requirements and expectations regarding
archiving of data and publications still apply, see Section II.c of the ROSES-22
Summary of Solicitation.
Table A.53-2: Required Parts of the Step-2 Proposal
Required Sections for Step-2 Proposals Reference
NSPIRES Proposal Web Cover Page Automatically generated
Proposal Summary (limit to 4000 characters)
Wildfire lifecycle focus area(s)
Open-Source Software Plan (see Section 3.2)

Table of Contents Guidebook Section 2.12

15-page Scientific/Technical/Management Section Guidebook Section 2.13; also
• Applicability to NASA FireSense Project section 2.2.1 A, B above.
(Relevancy Scenario)
ESTO-specific statement of technological See 2.2.1.B above
innovation and statement of technology
assessment
ESTO-specific statement of technology See 2.2.1.B above
assessment
References and Citations See the ROSES-2022 Summary
of Solicitation

A.53-9
ESTO-specific Work Plan (1 page) See 2.2.1.C above
ESTO-specific Quad Chart See 2.2.1.D above
ESTO-specific TRL Table and justification See 2.2.1.E above
Biographical Sketch(es) See Table 1 of ROSES-2022
Current and Pending Support See Table 1 of ROSES-2022
Letters of Endorsement for foreign Co-Is and See Table 1 of ROSES-2022
Letters of Resource Support, if applicable.
Letter of Affirmation from wildfire management See Section 1.2.2
community
Budget Justification – Narrative Details (redacted) See Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation

3. Special Matters
3.1 Diversity and Inclusion
At NASA, diversity and inclusion are central to mission success. By fostering an
atmosphere of inclusion and respect for all, we value strengths afforded by both our
commonalities and differences with an aim to fully engage and utilize talents, ideas, and
perspectives. Projects that offer an opportunity to tap the nation’s diverse talent pool
and broaden participation in Earth science remote sensing technology development are
strongly encouraged.
3.2 Open-Source Software License
The software developed under this program element must be designated, developed,
and distributed to the public as Open-Source Software (OSS). Software developed may
be created to operate in conjunction with commercial or other restricted-use software
(such as MATLAB, Envi, or arc-GIS) and environments, but must be licensed
separately. The proposal shall include a plan for open-source contribution of the
software and, if applicable, a reuse license. Further licensing guidance can be found on
the EarthData website. The OSS plan must be included in the 4000-character text box
in response to the appropriate question on the NSPIRES proposal cover page of the
Step-2 proposal.
3.3 Agency Computing Resources
The Agency provides high-end computing resources for investigators through its field
centers and by way of partnerships with external cloud providers. See Section I(e) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation for more information.
4. Evaluation Criteria
For Step-1 proposals, the following evaluation criteria will be used:
• Responsiveness of the proposed work to NASA Earth Science goals and to the
objectives of improving wildland fire management
• Level of innovation and return on investment for the capstone mission
• Team composition, including a wildland fire expert

A.53-10
 • Technical relevance
For Step-2 proposals, the three basic evaluation criteria, Relevance, Intrinsic Merit, and
Cost Reasonableness are defined in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and applied as
described in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Clarifications and
additions specific to this program element are listed below.
The evaluation of the Relevance criterion is defined as the applicability of the proposed
investigation to Earth Science Division missions and technology needs, and specifically
includes the relevance to this Program Element, including an appropriate relevancy
scenario. A Letter of Affirmation by a representative Agency (See Section 1.2.2) who is
not on the proposal team will be considered as strong support for the relevance factor.
The definition of Intrinsic Merit is given in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook. Below
are clarifications and details about some of the factors described in Appendix D which
will be important in the evaluation of Merit:
• The potential for the proposed technology to improve the effectiveness of
wildland fire management
• The degree of innovation and approach that has potential for high impact
• The qualifications, past performance, and the proven expertise and experience of
the team in all areas of the proposed technology
• The justification and appropriateness of the entry and exit TRL, as proposed
• The feasibility of making a demonstrable TRL increase of at least one level
during the performance period
• The potential for the technology development to improve the ability to do Earth
System Science.
• The potential to reduce any of the following aspects of Earth science systems
development: risk, time, or cost.
• The potential of the technology and tools to be integrated, once matured, into the
planned capstone mission.
• The potential for the technology to have commercial benefits.
In addition to the evaluation of cost reasonableness described in the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers (e.g., the reasonableness of the level of effort and the cost of goods and
services), FireTech evaluation will include the following:
• The adequacy and achievability of proposed milestones and associated success
criteria;
• The adherence to sound and consistent management practices appropriate to
the TRL of the proposed task;
• The commitment of the organization’s management to the proposed technology
development (evidenced by prior teaming arrangements, etc.). Proposers should
identify any previous investment by the organization/program and provide
supporting documentation.

A.53-11
5. Awards and Reporting Requirements
5.1 Award Type
Awards to non-governmental organizations will be made in the forms of grants or
cooperative agreements, as appropriate given the nature of the work solicited. For more
about award types see Section II(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Awards
internal to the Government will be made through the usual Agency processes.
5.2 Reporting Requirements
In addition to the Agency reporting requirements for grants, there are also ESTO-
specific reporting requirements that must be incorporated in the work plan of FireTech
proposals, including semi-annual, annual, and final review presentations and the ESTO
Quad Chart. Summaries of the reporting requirements are provided in the table below.
Table A.53-3: Reporting requirements
Reporting Item Due Date
Project plan, initial quad chart initial TRL
Within 15 days of award
assessment
Technical reports Quarterly
Interim reviews Annually, beginning 6 months after award
Annual reviews Annually, beginning 12 months after award
Final review and written report At completion of project
Earth Science Technology Forum Annual presentation
Full details will be provided to investigators upon award. Please note these are in
addition to regular reporting requirements related to grants.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for new $3 - $7.5 million yearly
awards
Number of investigator awards 5-8 awards likely
pending adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals Step-1 proposals may be submitted at any
time through March 29, 2023 (the open period
of ROSES), but proposals will be reviewed
quarterly, beginning in August 2022. See
Section 2.
Due date for Invited Step-2 There is no defined due date, but only those
proposals who are invited may submit Step-2 proposals.
Proposers will be given at least 90 days to
respond.
Planning date for start of February 2023 for the initial review cycle, see
investigations Section 2.
Relevance This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science

A.53-12

General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for proposal submission
(NSPIRES)
Web site for proposal submission
(Grants.gov)
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Points of Contact for questions
regarding this program element all of
whom share this address:
Science Mission Directorate
Mary W. Jackson NASA
Headquarters
300 E St SW
Washington, DC 20546
Plan. Proposals relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
See A.1 Earth Science Research Overview
and Section IV and Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation
Please see NSPIRES Online Help, the 2022
NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
Electronic only; no hard copy permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available
at support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-FIRET
Michael Seablom
email: Michael.S.Seablom@nasa.gov
David Green
email: David.S.Green@nasa.gov
Barry Lefer
email: Barry.Lefer@nasa.gov
Michael Falkowski
email: Michael.Falkowski@nasa.gov
A.53-13
A.54 EARTH VENTURE SUBORBITAL-4
NOTICE: December 13, 2022. This amendment releases final text and
due dates for this program element, which was previously released as
a draft. Changes made between the draft and final text, will be
enumerated in the responses to questions and comments from EVS4
draft under other documents on the NSPIRES page for this program
element. We anticipate that a FAQ for this final EVS-4 text will also be
posted there. Mandatory Step-1 Proposals are due February 28, 2023,
and Step-2 Proposals are due April 27, 2023.
This program element is only soliciting science concept proposals.
Step-2 proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a
dual-anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared
according to the guidelines in Section 3.4 and in the associated
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other
Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
Unlike traditional proposals, proposals submitted to this program will
only be permitted to include a small team (the PI and up to 2 Deputy
PIs). Step-2 Proposals require the separate upload of multiple
components, given in Section 3.2.2. Some traditional elements, such
as a budget and a data management plan, are not required.
This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan Program,
see Section 3.2.4. The assessment of this Inclusion Plan will not be
part of the adjectival ratings nor selection recommendations for this
opportunity.
1. Context
The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Earth Science Division's (ESD) Earth
Venture (EV) activity consists of a series of regularly solicited, competitively selected
Earth Science investigations as recommended by the National Research Council’s 2017
decadal survey in Earth science, Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy
for Earth Observation from Space (The National Academies Press, 2018), available at
https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work-decadal-survey-for-earth-science-and-
applications-from-space.
1.1 Science Objectives
The overall objective of this fourth Earth Venture Suborbital (EVS-4) program element is
to substantially advance Earth system science and NASA’s Earth science goals through
science investigations involving sustained aircraft and/or other suborbital data
acquisition campaigns. This overall objective can be met in several ways, including but
not limited to:
• Acquiring measurements that address weaknesses in current Earth system
models, leading to improvement in modeling capabilities and accuracy,
• Producing data sets that identify and characterize important phenomena and/or
detecting and characterizing changes in the Earth system; and/or

A.54-1
 • Making measurements that contribute to the scientific goals of multiple Earth
science focus areas and/or disciplinary programs.
Investigations must be relevant to the science priorities, goals, and objectives in NASA’s
Science Strategy and NASA’s Earth science goals, as found in NASA’s Science Mission
Directorate 2020 Science Plan.
As described in the Science plan (page 12): Using the recommendations of the 2017
NASA Earth Science Decadal Survey, Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal
Strategy for Earth Observation from Space, as a compass, NASA Earth Science is
developing observing systems that will answer the most important science and
application questions of the next decade across the following focus areas:
• Coupling of the water and energy cycles
• Ecosystem change
• Extending and improving weather and air quality forecasts
• Reducing climate uncertainty and informing societal response
• Sea-level rise
• Surface dynamics, geological hazards, and disasters
Additional factors of relevance to this ROSES call include the following:
• Make use of, complement, and/or augment current NASA and non-NASA
satellite observational capabilities (at https://science.nasa.gov/missions-
page?field_division_tid=103&field_phase_tid=All);
• Contribute to and/or provide data products useful to NASA’s Applied Sciences
Program (https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/); and/or
• Contribute to planning for future satellite observations and/or enhanced Earth
system models.
NASA expects to select a balanced set of EVS-4 investigations addressing scientific
goals applicable to as many Earth Science focus areas as possible (see program
elements A.1 the Earth Science Research Overview and references therein for
descriptions of the Earth Science focus areas and disciplinary programs).
Successful competitively selected proposals will describe investigations that:
• Advance Earth system science objectives through temporally sustained
acquisition of large-scale (regional or larger) measurements sufficient and
necessary to prove/disprove a scientific hypothesis or address scientific
questions.
• Are led by a single Principal Investigator (PI) who has overall responsibility for
achieving the scientific objectives of the investigation including data acquisition,
data set production and transfer to a NASA-identified archive and distribution
center, scientific analysis, and dissemination of results.
• Are schedule-constrained, such that all data acquisition and science analysis
activities will be completed within 5 years of investigation start (defined as when
the investigation science team is selected); and
• Are cost-constrained, such that completion of all necessary data acquisition and
science analysis activities require NASA funding not to exceed the headquarters-
assigned cost cap.

A.54-2
This EVS-4 opportunity provides opportunities for two investigation classes,
differentiated by overall cost: "large" investigations, with an overall NASA lifetime cost
cap of $30 million (M), and "small" investigations, with an overall NASA lifetime cost
constraint of $15M. PIs may propose (and must indicate in response to a cover page
question whether it is) a large or a small investigation. Every large investigation may
also include a descoped small investigation threshold ($15M) version. NASA intends to
select a mix of large and small investigations to maximize research opportunities within
the total available funding (approximately $126M). NASA HQ will assign the
investigation’s cost cap at selection.
1.2 Types of Investigations Solicited
This EVS-4 program element solicits science-concept proposals for suborbital science
investigations that propose integrated approaches to pressing Earth system science
issues. To be eligible, investigations must be science-focused, concentrating on
detailed descriptions of the science to be achieved, including goals and objectives.
Proposals shall include observation strategies and a prioritized list of geophysical
observables and required modeling capabilities.
For this opportunity, a suborbital investigation is defined as one that relies primarily –
although not necessarily exclusively – on acquisition of new measurements from
airborne, shipborne, and/or balloon-borne platforms. Investigations that rely primarily on
measurements obtained from surface-based instruments, sounding rockets,
International Space Station, or CubeSats will not be considered responsive. Earth
science proposals for CubeSats are solicited under Earth Venture Instrument and/or
Earth Venture Mission calls. Investigators may propose acquisition of remote sensing
and/or in situ observations from suborbital platform(s) and may utilize additional
measurements from surface and/or subsurface observing systems, as well as from
existing satellite missions.
Building on and evolving programmatically from previous Earth Venture Suborbital
(EVS) solicitations in 2009, 2013, and 2017, this EVS-4 program element solicits
proposals for multi-year, PI-led, suborbital campaign-based investigations that advance
Earth system science objectives to better understand the current state of the Earth and
to predict future change.
1.3 Changes in the EVS Solicitation Process
Below is a list of major changes from the previously released draft to this final text,
described in greater detail in subsequent sections:
1. This program element solicits solely the science concept; the team will be
solicited subsequently, see below in this section for more information.
2. Proposal submission to this program element will be via a 2-step submission
process, see Section 3.
3. Step-2 Proposals include multiple mandatory separately uploaded components,
but other traditional elements, such as a budget and a data management plan,
are not required. See Section 3.2 for details.
4. Step-2 Proposals submitted to this program element will be evaluated using Dual
Anonymous Peer Review, so some parts of the Step-2 proposals must be
prepared in an anonymized manner, see Section 3.4.

A.54-3
The intent of this EVS-4 program element is to focus proposal evaluation on scientific
merit and increase opportunities for the science community to submit EVS concepts by
1) reducing the overall level of effort involved in submitting comprehensive EVS
proposals (similar to EVS-3 proposals that included a complete science team, budget,
and schedule), 2) reducing implicit bias in the review process, 3) increasing inclusivity
and opportunity to participate in EVS-4 science teams, and 4) increasing diversity and
inclusion in science leadership.
NASA's experience with EVS-1, -2, and -3 investigations highlighted the complexity of
the full set of tasks required to plan, cost, and implement a sustained, multi-year and
multi-deployment suborbital field campaign. NASA recognizes that some investigators
may come from institutions which do not have the overall institutional capability to
provide the suite of resources required for developing a comprehensive EVS proposal.
In response, the EVS-4 solicitation process introduces changes to the standard
proposal process. The goal is to enhance the pool of applicants able to respond to this
opportunity while continuing to ensure field deployment success.
This EVS-4 program solicitation process will consist of multiple ROSES elements. This
opportunity will only solicit science concept proposals. The peer review process will be
via Dual Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR), see Section 3.4. Subsequent ROSES
Investigation-specific calls will compete the science teams and the peer review process
will be via the traditional ROSES review process (i.e., not using DAPR).
1.3.1 Science Concept Proposal: Investigation Submission, Review, and Selection
For this ROSES element, the science-concept proposal will be referred to hereinafter as
the “Step-2 proposal”.
• PI teams (the PI and up to 2 Deputy PIs) will submit a Step-2 proposal with a 15-
page Science/Technical section. Proposals must be science-focused,
concentrating on detailed descriptions of the science to be achieved, including
goals and objectives. Proposals shall primarily include the desired observation
strategies, modeling needs, and a prioritized list of geophysical observables.
• The PI team must consist of a PI and up to 2 deputy PIs. At least one of the
members of the PI team must be an early- career scientist (in this call, an early-
career scientist is defined as someone who must have received their terminal
degree no earlier than January 1, 2013. Time taken away from career activities
for family (e.g., for the birth or adoption of a child, or for the care of a dependent)
or health reasons, or military service will not be counted against this time limit for
eligibility).
• The EVS-4 NSPIRES cover page must name only the PI team and shall not
include names of any other potential science team members. Science team
membership (all instrument, modeling/forecasting teams and leadership
(excluding PI team)) will be competed in the subsequent Investigation-specific
ROSES Program element.
• To support the Dual Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR) process:
o In addition to the anonymized Step-2 proposal, a separately uploaded
Expertise and Resources (non-anonymized) PDF document is required.
Unlike the science proposal, this document is not anonymized; see Section

A.54-4
 3.4. Descriptions of the required documents are provided in Section 3.2.2.
The Expertise and Resources (non-anonymized) documents are distributed to
the science evaluation panel after the initial merit evaluation is completed
(typically the top third, according to the distribution of assigned grades and
projected selection rates). This will enable reviewers to assess the PI team’s
capabilities required to execute the proposed science investigation. This
assessment does not affect the science grade and will be used by the
Selection Official to help assess whether there would be any risks in funding
the proposal. For selectable proposals, the Expertise and Resources (non-
anonymized) documents are distributed to the feasibility panel (See Section
3.4).
2. Earth Venture Suborbital-4 Investigation Requirements
2.1 Investigation Requirements
Successful responses to this program element shall specify and justify the scientific
scope and objectives of the proposed investigation, detail baseline and threshold
science requirements, and list all required measurements.
For this opportunity, "Baseline Science Requirements" are the investigation
performance requirements necessary to achieve the full science objectives of the
investigation. "Threshold Science Requirements" are the capabilities and results
necessary to achieve the minimum science acceptable for the investment. Baseline and
threshold science requirements for both large and small investigations are required.
2.2 Excess Capacity in Selected Investigations
NASA reserves the right to utilize excess capacity on measurement platforms in
selected investigations. NASA could potentially add measurements, flight hours,
sampling locations and/or times, etc., to any investigation selected and funded under
EVS-4. Additions will be coordinated with the PI and risks to the proposed investigation
will be minimized. Any costs associated with such additions will be covered by NASA
outside of the investigation’s cost-capped funding.
2.3 Science Management
2.3.1 Single Principal Investigator
A single Principal Investigator (PI), who has overall authority and responsibility for the
investigation, must be identified on the EVS-4 NSPIRES cover page. The other PI team
members (up to 2 deputies) must be identified on the cover page as well. At least one of
the members of the PI team must be an early-career scientist (An early-career scientist
is defined as someone who must have received their terminal degree no earlier than
January 1, 2013. Time taken away from career activities for family (e.g., for the birth or
adoption of a child, or for the care of a dependent) or health reasons, or military service
will not be counted against this time limit for eligibility. To enable the DAPR process, no
identifying information may be included in the anonymized portions of the Step-2
proposal (see Section 3.4).

A.54-5
 2.3.2 Other Science Management Roles
Other science management roles (e.g., Co-I, Investigation Manager (IM), etc.) are not to
be named in the proposal. Program Scientist(s) (PS) and IM will be assigned (see
Section 5) and other positions will be competed and selected in the subsequent ROSES
Investigation-specific calls.
3. Two-Step Proposal Submission Process
The proposal submission will be via a two-step process (Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation) in which mandatory Step-1 proposals, see Section 3.1 below,
replace Notices of Intent. The peer reviewed Step-2 proposal can only be submitted by
organizations that have previously submitted a compliant Step-1 proposal, and it is
composed of multiple separately uploaded components, see Section 3.2, below. Both
Step-1 and Step-2 proposals must conform to the formatting rules given in Section
IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
3.1 Step-1 Proposal
Step-1 proposals must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 Due Date in Tables 2
and 3 of ROSES-22. Unlike an NOI, a Step-1 proposal is required and must be
submitted electronically by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR).
Proposers should refer to the "Instructions for Submitting a Step-1 Proposal" under
"Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element. The Proposal
Summary, Program Specific Data, and Proposal Team are required Cover Page
Elements for a Step-1 proposal.
NSPIRES will be open for the submission of Step-1 proposals starting ~30 days in
advance of the Step-1 Due Date. NASA will then internally review each Step-1 proposal
to determine whether the anticipated research investigation is considered responsive to
the current solicitation to warrant submission of a full Step-2 proposal. A separate Step-
1 proposal must be submitted for each intended (and thus corresponding) Step-2
proposal.
Step-1 proposals are not anonymized. A budget should not be included with the Step-1
proposal.
3.1.1 Step-1 Structure, Content and Format
Step-1 proposals must be uploaded as a PDF file with a Science/Technical section not
to exceed four pages, including all text, tables, and figures. PI Team’s names and
organizations and any references that are part of the Step-1 proposal are not included
in the 4-page limit. The PI team’s names and organizations (do not list anyone other
than members of the PI team) will be included in NSPIRES.
To facilitate the work by reviewers, the Step-1 proposal should follow the structure
below:
• Proposal title (not to exceed 254 characters); the title should be readily
understandable by a scientifically trained person
• A brief description of the science question(s) or hypothesis(es), including the
required measurements, measurement platform(s), deployment location(s), and a
notional timeline of major investigation milestones

A.54-6
 • Relevance to Earth science and applications goals
• The primary and secondary science focus area
The four-page Science/Technical section of the Step-1 proposals must include all
information necessary to evaluate the Step-1 proposal. The format of the Step-1
proposals must conform to the rules laid out in Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation.
No individualized feedback will be provided in response to Step-1 proposals. Instead,
proposers will be informed via NSPIRES whether their submission has been
encouraged or discouraged. Whether or not the Step-1 proposal is encouraged or
discouraged, proposers who submitted a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a Step-2
proposal. Submission of a Step-1 proposal is required to submit a Step-2 proposal.
However, the submission of a Step-1 proposal is not a commitment to submit a Step-2
proposal.
3.2 Step-2 Proposal
Step-2 proposals must contain the same scientific goals and “PI team” proposed in
Step-1. If a change is required due to unforeseen circumstances, please notify the point
of contact concerning this element.
Step-2 proposals must be submitted electronically by the AOR, by the Step-2 Due Date
in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-22. Proposers should refer to the "Instructions for
Submitting a Step-2 Proposal" under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this
program element.
Any page-limited section of the proposal document must follow the Standard Proposal
Style Formats as described in Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
A budget should not be included with the Step-2 proposal.
A Data Management Plan is not required. However, if an award is made, the standard
requirements and expectations regarding release of supporting data and code still
apply. For more information see Section 1.1 of the Earth Science Research Overview,
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/collaborate/open-data-services-and-software and
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/esdis/eso/standards-and-references.
Non-U.S. Organizations: Special Restrictions apply (see Section 2.2.1 of the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers).
3.2.1 Required NSPIRES "Cover Page” Elements Including Proposal Summary
In addition to the 5 separately uploaded documents listed below, the Step-2 Proposal
has required NSPIRES "Cover Page Elements" including:
• Proposal Summary – limit of 4,000 characters (including spaces, see below)
• PI Team names and institutions (online team member confirmation required)
• Program Specific Data
• Other items/questions as required
The 4,000-character Proposal Summary entered via the NSPIRES cover page must be
anonymous and shall include:

A.54-7
 • Baseline and Threshold science objectives (including the importance of the
science to NASA Earth Science research programs, goals, and objectives)
• Investigation overview
• Key suborbital platform(s) characteristics
• Schedule summary
• Deployment location(s); and
• Identification as a small or large investigation
3.2.2 Summary of Five Mandatory Step-2 Proposal Documents
In addition to the NSPIRES cover page, see above, Step-2 proposals are composed of
five separately uploaded PDF documents (2 anonymized and 3 non-anonymized):
1. Anonymized 15-page Scientific/Technical Plan; Section 3.2.3
2. Anonymized 2-page Inclusion plan; Section 3.2.4
3. Non-anonymized PI team qualifications (bio-sketches, current and pending, etc.);
Section 3.2.5
4. Non-anonymized list of proposal co-authors and affiliation; Section 3.2.5
5. Non-anonymized existing examples of potential resources; Section 3.2.5
3.2.3 Required Step-2 Proposal Document #1: Anonymized Scientific/Technical Plan
The first uploaded document of the Step-2 proposal is the Scientific/Technical Plan,
which shall contain only the elements listed in Table A.54-1, below.
Proposals shall follow formatting guidelines in the Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation. Additional formatting guidelines specific to this program
element are:
• The Scientific/Technical Plan of the Step-2 proposal shall not exceed 15 pages
(this limit includes all figures, tables, but does not include references or other
required parts of the Step-2 proposal that are located outside of the
Scientific/Technical section such as the inclusion plan etc. Web links may be
included in the references, but reviewers are not required to view them during the
evaluation process). Upload this PDF as document type “Scientific/Technical Plan”
• All proposals must adhere to the DAPR rules and requirements, see Section 3.4.
No potentially identifying information shall be included in the proposal.
Table A.54-1. Required Anonymized Scientific Technical Plan Elements
The Scientific Technical Plan shall contain:
Required Elements of the Proposal (in order of assembly) Page Limit
Table of Contents As needed
Anonymized Scientific/Technical Plan, which shall include: 15
• Science goals and objectives
• Relevance to Earth Science
• Baseline and Threshold science requirements
• Science implementation
o Science Measurement Requirement Matrix
o Science Modeling Requirement Matrix
o Science Observing Profile

A.54-8
 ▪ Includes the Identification as a large or small
investigation
References and Citations As needed
Other relevant information, including figures or drawings, may be included at the
proposer’s discretion and as space permits. Foldout pages are not allowed.
3.2.3.1 Science Goals and Objectives
This section of the proposal shall describe the investigation’s goals and objectives,
compelling nature, and value to advancing NASA’s Earth science objectives as
described in Section 1 of this EVS-4 program element. The driving science question(s)
or hypothesis(es) shall be described. This section shall describe the need for sustained
measurements, provide an explanation of how the scientific hypothesis(es) or science
question(s) will be addressed, and describe the allocation of functional and performance
characteristics necessary to address the hypothesis(es) or question(s). Proposals will
be reviewed using the DAPR process and shall be written to comply with this process
(see Section 3.4).
3.2.3.2 Relevance
Relevance to Earth Science goals and traceability to ESD science focus area(s) and
associated research program(s), see Appendix A.
Proposers are encouraged to describe the relationships between the proposed science
investigation and the recommendations of the 2017 Earth Science decadal survey.
3.2.3.3 Baseline and Threshold Science Requirements
This section shall describe the Baseline and Threshold Science Requirements. Baseline
Science Requirements are the investigation performance requirements necessary to
achieve the full science objectives of the investigation. Threshold Science
Requirements are the investigation requirements necessary to achieve the minimum
science acceptable for the investment. Baseline and threshold science requirements for
both large and small investigations are required.
3.2.3.4 Science Implementation
This section shall include: (1) a Science Measurement Requirement Matrix, (2) a
Science Modeling Requirement Matrix, and (3) a discussion of the science observing
profile.
(1) Science Measurement Requirement Matrix
The Science Measurement Requirement Matrix, see Table A.54-2 below, shall describe
the investigation to be performed, including: (1) the types of measurements required
(Scientific Measurement), and (2) precision and accuracy of the measurements required
(Measurement Requirements) to attain the scientific objectives. Because it is not
possible to know the cost and type of instrument that will be selected in the subsequent
ROSES Investigation-specific call the matrix must include a priority rating for each
geophysical variable. Express priority ratings as: 1 = required, 2 = desired, 3 = useful
(see Appendix B).

A.54-9
 Table A.54-2. Science Measurement Requirement Matrix
Scientific Priority Measurement Science Objectives/ Threshold or
Measurement Rating Requirements Questions Addressed Baseline

The Science Measurement Requirement Matrix shall map scientific measurement

requirements (e.g., required precision, sampling rate, resolution, accuracy, etc.) to a
proposed science objective. Table A.54-2 is an example of Science Measurement
Requirements Matrix that may be appropriately modified for this purpose. Priority 1
measurements/modeling capabilities are those required to achieve the proposed
threshold science objectives.
(2) Science Modeling Requirement Matrix
The Science Modeling Requirement Matrix shall describe the investigation to be
performed, including the types of modeling capabilities and requirements necessary to
achieve the proposed scientific objectives. Because it is not possible to know the
associated cost of a modeling capability selected in the subsequent ROSES
Investigation-specific call, the matrix must include a priority rating for each geophysical
variable. Express priority ratings as: 1 = required, 2 = desired, 3 = useful (see Appendix
B).
This Science Modeling Requirement Matrix shall map scientific measurement
requirements to a science objective. Table A.54-3 is an example of a Science Modeling
Requirement Matrix that may be appropriately modified for this purpose. Priority 1
measurements/modeling capabilities are those that are required to achieve threshold
science objectives.
Table A.54-3. Science Modeling Requirement Matrix
Scientific Modeling Priority Measurement Science Objectives/ Threshold or
Capability Rating Requirements Questions Addressed Baseline

(3) Science Observing Profile

This section shall discuss in detail the science observing profile, including all
investigation-relevant parameters (e.g., example flight plans) and operational
milestones needed to address the science goals. This section must also include basic
operational requirements including aircraft/platform, deployment sites and the proposed
observing periods, data analysis periods, and any other time-critical events. The
proposal shall also include modeling and data analysis needs, key milestones, and
investigation size (large/small). If the preferred investigation size is large ($30M), a
description of a descoped (small, $15M) may be included.
Initial deployment plans and costing will be completed after the award of this EVS-4
Program element, with the support of the PS and IM; however, some basic design

A.54-10
information about the needs of the investigation is required (e.g., requested
aircraft/platform(s), data collection/deployment site location(s), etc.).
3.2.4 Required Step-2 Proposal Document #2: Anonymized Inclusion Plan
A separately uploaded two-page inclusion plan is the second required document for the
Step-2 proposal. Upload this PDF as document type “Inclusion Plan”.
Table A.54-4. Required Anonymized Inclusion Plan Elements
Required Elements of the Proposal Page Limit
The Inclusion Plan shall: 2 pages
● Clearly state goals for creating and sustaining a positive
and inclusive working environment and describe activities
to achieve these goals (Section 3.2.4.1).
● Include a list of potential team activities to promote
inclusion.
● Include a proposed level of effort for team members to
carry out the proposed Inclusion Plan activities.
Inclusion is a core NASA value, exemplified by NASA in the Administrator’s policy
statement on this Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA). Additionally,
Strategy 4.1 of “Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence” states: “Increase
the diversity of thought and backgrounds represented across the entire SMD portfolio
through a more inclusive environment.” This strategy clearly underscores the
importance of DEIA in NASA’s work.
This solicitation defines inclusion as the full participation, belonging, and contribution of
groups and individuals within an organization or endeavor. Note that inclusion is distinct
and different from diversity. Inclusion requires that everyone's contributions be valued,
and that individuals, regardless of the diversity dimension, can do their best work and
advance.
By fostering an atmosphere of inclusion and respect for all, we value the strengths
afforded by both our commonalities and differences with an aim to fully engage varied
talents, ideas, and perspectives. Investigations that offer an opportunity to use and
empower the nation's diverse talent pool and increase its participation in science are
strongly encouraged.
In support of NASA's core value of Inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate
Science Plan Strategy 4.1, this program element requires the addition of an Inclusion
Plan of up to two pages in length, as a separately uploaded document from the science
proposal. Where applicable or necessary, Inclusion Plans shall cite any relevant
references from social science literature, NASA Decadal Surveys, etc., used to create
the Inclusion Plan and include these references in a separate reference list immediately
following the Inclusion Plan text. This list of references does not count towards the
Inclusion Plan page limit and shall be separate from those for the main science
proposal.

A.54-11
 3.2.4.1 Inclusion Plan Requirements
The 2-page separately uploaded Inclusion Plan shall clearly state goals for creating and
sustaining a positive and inclusive working environment and describe activities to achieve
these goals including:
○ Identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment that are
specific to the proposed investigation;
○ Address ways in which the investigation team will work to attenuate or reduce
these barriers, such as fostering communication and openness amongst the
team, accounting for power dynamics to support the team (e.g., awareness of
positionality affecting the behaviors team members), elevating voices, etc., to
create and sustain an inclusive environment;
○ Describe any training(s) that the team would participate in (e.g., bystander
intervention training, microaggression awareness training, etc.) to equip and train
team members in such a way that they can go on to lead and contribute to other
teams that are inclusive; and
○ Contain metrics for measuring the success of these activities.
The inclusion plan may be tailored specifically to barriers the team is aware of that they
will/may encounter during the proposed work, rather than to generic issues surrounding
inclusion, and how the team will work to overcome those barriers to create a positive
and inclusive working environment; inclusion plans are not intended to be applicable to
the broader Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) community.
Note that an Inclusion Plan is not the same as public engagement efforts or traditional
team building exercises.
Proposal teams are encouraged to identify level of effort for team members to carry out
the proposed Inclusion Plan activities. Proposals state that a team member from the PI
team who will oversee this effort, and a suggested list of activities. It is the PI team’s
responsibility to carry out the proposed activities rather than fully outsource them. All
team members are expected to contribute to fostering an inclusive and positive work
environment.
After a cost-cap has been assigned to the selected science investigation, funding for
Inclusion Plan-related activities may be part of the overall Investigation’s budget and
shall be explicitly identified and justified in the Inclusion Plan section of the Investigation
Implementation Plan (IIP) and will be a part of the selected science investigation’s final
budget. The IIP will be developed after the selection of the science team in subsequent
ROSES investigation specific call.
Progress in executing the investigation’s Inclusion Plan shall be reported annually as
part of the annual program science review.
3.2.5 Required Step-2 Proposal Documents #3, 4 and 5: Non-anonymized expertise
and resources documents
Three separately uploaded non-anonymized expertise and resources documents are
required:
• Document #3: PI team qualifications (bio-sketches, current and pending, etc.)
(non-anonymized)

A.54-12
 • Document #4: List of proposal co-authors and affiliation (non-anonymized)
• Document #5: Examples of existing resources (non-anonymized)
The three separately uploaded Expertise and Resources (non-anonymized) PDF
documents shall include the following:
Table A.54-5. Required Non-Anonymized Expertise and Resources Documents
Required Elements of the Non-Anonymized Documents Page Limit

Document #3 - Biographical Sketches of Principal Investigator Team

Biographical Sketch of the Principal Investigator Team (PI plus up to As needed
2 Deputies). Brief description of the scientific and technical expertise
the PI team brings, emphasizing the experience necessary to be
successful in executing the proposed work
PI team current and pending support As needed

Document #4 - List of proposal co-authors and their affiliations

List of proposal co-authors and their affiliations (individuals who As needed
contributed to the development of the proposal). This is to ensure that
scientists and engineers that contributed to the proposal are not
included in the review process.

Document #5 - Examples of existing resources

Existence of specific resources for the investigation As needed
o Identify at least one potential TRL 6 (or higher) instrument that
can make the observations to meet or exceed threshold science
requirements as listed in the Science Measurement Requirement
Matrix (Feasibility review element, see Section 4.2.3)
o Identify at least one potential model that has the capabilities to
meet or exceed threshold science requirements as listed in the
Science Modeling Requirement Matrix (Feasibility review
element, see Section 4.2.3)
o Any additional required facilities (i.e. specific calibration facility,
specific platform launch facility etc.)
o Letters of support, as needed

3.2.6 Questions and Frequently Asked Questions

Address any questions concerning this EVS-4 program element to the EVS-4 Program
Scientist (see Section 6). A summary of representative questions and responses will be
posted, with identifying information removed, in a FAQ on the index page for this EVS-4
program element under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program
element.
Proprietary information must be clearly identified in all correspondence and will not be
conveyed in any manner to the public.

A.54-13
3.3 Budget Cost Caps
The total NASA funds ultimately awarded for the investigations initially selected under
this program element, will be approximately $126M. Investigations will be selected
consistent with the availability of proposals of appropriate scientific and programmatic
merit and the available funds allocated for this solicitation, as well as contingent on the
availability of other needed resources (e.g., aircraft platforms, instruments, etc.). The
NASA-funded cost for all phases of an investigation – including costs of NASA Civil
Servants – must not exceed $30M for a large investigation (including reserves) and
$15M for a small investigation (including reserves). NASA reserves the right to make no
selection if no proposals of appropriate merit are received.
3.4 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Step-2 Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous
peer review (DAPR) process in which not only are proposers unaware of the identity of
the reviewers, the reviewers are not told the identity of the proposers until after the
evaluation of the aspects of the proposal that don’t include the identity of the proposers
(see below). The objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to minimize bias in the
evaluation of the merit of a proposal, see https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-
anonymous-peer-review.
To implement DAPR, reviewers may not see any information that would identify
proposers. Proposers must follow the instructions below, anonymizing the Proposal
Summary and two of the five separately uploaded documents that make up the Step-2
proposal, see below for details.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will be partly hidden for the peer reviewers. Since the Proposal Summary
may be shared with reviewers as part of the review assignment process, it must be
anonymized, but all other sections of the NSPIRES cover page should be completed as
normal and NSPIRES will hide the identifying information from the reviewers.
This Step-2 proposal includes 5 documents (see Sections 3.2.2-3.2.5) two of which are
anonymized and three of which are not. The two anonymized documents are the 15-
page Scientific/Technical Plan (see Section 3.2.3) and the 2-page inclusion plan (See
Section 3.2.4). The three not anonymized documents are the PI team qualifications, list
of co-authors, and examples of existing potential resources (see Section 3.2.5).
Proposers may also refer to the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under
"Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element but with a caveat:
those are generic instructions that assume a single anonymized proposal document and
a single not anonymized document. The instructions in this program element take
precedence.
Review panels will be instructed to evaluate the two anonymized documents, without
taking into account the qualifications and capabilities of the proposers. After the
evaluation of the aspects of the proposal that don’t require the identity of the proposers
has been finalized for all proposals, panelists will be provided with the three Not

A.54-14
Anonymized documents for a subset of proposals that scored highly (depending on the
grades and projected selection rates).
The panel will use the three Not Anonymized documents to assess the PI’s
qualifications, allowing them to ensure a PI has the capabilities required to lead the
proposed science investigation. For selectable proposals, the Existence of Specific
Resources document (document #5 in Table A.54-5) will be distributed to the feasibility
panel as part of the overall feasibility evaluation (see Section 4.2.3).
A summary of the key proposal requirements for anonymized proposals are listed below:
Table A.54-6. Key Proposal Elements and Corresponding DAPR Instructions
Item Requirement
Step-2 Proposal In addition to anonymizing the content of Step-2 Proposal
Document PDF Documents 1 and 2 (see Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4), ensure that
files any PDF bookmarks are anonymous, and the document
properties do not reveal names of author or organization.
Scientific/Technical Step-2 proposal document #1. Anonymized. 15 pages, not
(S/T) Plan including references, see Section 3.2.3.
S/T Plan References must be in the [1], [2] format, part of anonymized
References document #1
Inclusion Plan (IP) Step-2 proposal document #2. Anonymized. 2 pages not
including references, see Section 3.2.4.
IP references, if References must be in the [1], [2] format, part of anonymized
needed document #2
Biographical Sketch Step-2 proposal document #3. Non-anonymized. See Section
3.2.5. Uploaded separately.
List of Co-Authors Step-2 proposal document #4. Non-anonymized. See Section
and Affiliations 3.2.5. Uploaded separately.
Examples of Step-2 proposal document #5. Non-anonymized. See Section
Existing Resources 3.2.5. Uploaded separately.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in the
Pending Support separately uploaded non-anonymized document #3.
See Section 3.2.5.
Optional Letters or Optional Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements of Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separately
commitment uploaded non-anonymized document #5. See Section 3.2.5.
Proposal Budget Do not include.
Facilities and Please include information about desired observing platform in
Equipment Scientific/Technical Plan. Required facilities and equipment
shall be included in the separately uploaded non-anonymized
document #5.
Proposal This is the separately uploaded non-anonymized document #4
contributor list which contains the list of names and affiliations of contributors
to the proposal.

A.54-15
4. Proposal Evaluation
The proposal submission will be via a two-step process: 1) mandatory non-anonymized
Step-1 proposal (replaces Notices of Intent), and 2) anonymized Step-2 proposal.
4.1 Step-1 Evaluation Process and Criteria
No evaluation of intrinsic merit will be performed on Step-1 proposals. The perceived
relevance of the proposed work to the EVS-4 element will be the main factor in deciding
whether submission of a Step-2 proposal will be encouraged. In rare cases, for
example, when the Step-1 proposal is not compliant with the requirements outlined
above, or the proposed work cannot be funded because of NASA or SMD policy, a
Step-1 proposal may be declined by the Selection Official and a Step-2 proposal cannot
be submitted. Most proposers will be notified through NSPIRES that the Step-1
proposal has been designated as "encouraged" or "discouraged," at which point the
proposer will be able to create a Step-2 proposal. Please note that the Step-2 proposal
evaluation is independent of the Step-1 designation; i.e., reviewers of a Step-2 proposal
do not know whether a proposal was discouraged at Step-1.
The Step-1 proposals will be evaluated by NASA Earth Science Division Program
Scientists to determine if the anticipated research investigation is considered of
sufficient merit to be competitive at Step 2, relevant to the program, and responsive to
the current solicitation.
4.2 Step-2 Proposal Evaluation Process and Criteria
The intent of this EVS-4 program element is to focus proposal evaluation on scientific
merit and increase opportunities for the science community to submit EVS concepts by
1) reducing the overall level of effort involved in submitting comprehensive EVS
proposals (similar to EVS-3 proposals that included a complete science team, budget,
and schedule), 2) reducing implicit bias in the review process by using DAPR, see
Section 3.4, and 3) increasing inclusivity and opportunity to participate in EVS-4 science
teams by competing science team membership in the subsequent Investigation-specific
ROSES Program elements and 4) increasing diversity and inclusion in science
leadership.
Proposals to this program element will be evaluated on merit, absent the qualifications
and capabilities of the team, other than the PI team. After selection, the investigation will
be scoped, costed, and science teams competed (see Section 5).
The proposal review process:
• Proposal evaluation is via the DAPR (see Section 3.4)
• Proposals will be reviewed by panels of subject matter experts
• Proposal review criteria will include merit, relevance, and feasibility
• Inclusion plans will be assessed but will not be part of the adjectival rating for the
proposal nor inform the selection of proposals
• NASA will select approximately 5 proposals
• At selection, PIs will be informed if their proposal was approved as a large or
small investigation

A.54-16
The anonymized Step-2 proposal evaluation criteria are: Relevance (4.2.1), Intrinsic
Merit (4.2.2), and Basic Feasibility (4.2.3).
In addition, the NASA selection official may consider programmatic factors (4.2.5).
4.2.1 Relevance
Evaluation for relevance includes the following factors:
• Relevance of the proposed investigation to the specific research objectives and
goals of this program element,
• Relevance of the proposed investigation to NASA’s Earth science research program,
if applicable,
• Relevance of the proposed investigation to NASA’s Earth Applied Sciences
Program, if applicable,
• Degree to which the proposed investigation will augment and complement current
investigations in the NASA Earth Science Research Program and/or current satellite
observational capabilities (https://science.nasa.gov/missions-
page?field_division_tid=103&field_phase_tid=All), and
• Degree to which the proposed investigation contributes to the planning for future
satellite observations and/or enhanced Earth system models.
4.2.2 Intrinsic Merit
This evaluation criterion specifically includes the degree to which the proposed
investigation:
• Fully addresses the Baseline and Threshold Science Objectives (Section 3.2.3.3
• Employs an integrated approach (multi-perspective observations, modeling, etc.)
• Applies hypothesis and/or science question-driven methods
• Utilizes state-of-the-art approaches, concepts, or advanced technologies
• Contributes to Earth system science (e.g., contributing to an improved modeling
capability, producing data sets suitable for identifying and characterizing important
phenomena and/or detecting and characterizing changes in the Earth system).
4.2.3 Basic Feasibility
A separate Feasibility panel will examine non-anonymized basic feasibility for all
selectable proposals and provide a report to the EVS-4 Selection Official. The scientific
review will not consider the feasibility review. The EVS-4 proposal feasibility
assessment criteria will include:
Adequacy of Requirements:
a. Is the aircraft/platform suitable for the investigation goals?
b. Is the deployment site appropriate for NASA operations?
c. Is the deployment site appropriate for the aircraft?
d. Is there at least one potential TRL 6 (or higher) instrument that can make the
observations to meet or exceed threshold science requirements as listed in the
Science Measurement Requirement Matrix?
e. Is there at least one potential model that has the capabilities to meet or exceed
threshold science requirements as listed in the Science Modeling Requirement
Matrix?

A.54-17
 f. Is the deployment site high risk?
g. Is it feasible to complete the investigation within the large/small cost cap
requested?
h. Is it feasible to complete the investigation within the 5-year time limit?
4.2.4 Inclusion Plan
The separately uploaded Inclusion Plan will be evaluated by a team that includes DEIA
experts. The Inclusion Plan will be assessed for adequacy, appropriateness, and
completeness. Feedback will be provided to the proposers in the form of a DEIA
evaluation. For the assessment of the Inclusion Plan, the reviewer will be asked the
following factors:
● The extent to which the Inclusion Plan demonstrated awareness of systemic
barriers to creating inclusive working environments
● The extent to which the Inclusion Plan provided appropriate processes and goals
for both creating and sustaining a positive and inclusive working environment for
the investigation team.
● Whether the Inclusion Plan contained actionable activities including training that
will foster inclusive practices among team members that they can then use
beyond the funded period.
● Whether the Inclusion Plan provided reasonable and appropriate metrics for
measuring progress in and success of the proposed activities
● Whether the proposed resources are reasonable and realistic in completion of
the proposed activities, with appropriate justification.
The assessment of the Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival rating for the
proposal nor inform selection decisions.
4.2.5 Programmatic Factors
The decision by the selection official may include programmatic considerations,
constraints, and priorities as part of the final selection. See Section V(b) of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation.
5. Post-Award Activities
After investigations are selected, NASA Program Scientist(s) (PSs) will be assigned to
each investigation and NASA and the PI will work together to select an Investigation
Manager (IM) and a supporting IM team. The IM will be responsible for the logistical and
administrative support for organizing and coordinating an EVS-4 Investigation. Upon
selection, both the PI team and the IM team will be funded. The PI and IM teams will
negotiate with NASA Program Management to determine the required full-time
equivalent (FTE) level of effort needed to support each team within the first year after
selection. It is anticipated that this will be about 1 FTE equivalent per PI and IM team.
Any costs incurred by the PI team and IM team, including labor and travel funds, are
part of the investigations’ cost cap. The IM team will have the experience and
information (from previous campaigns and from site visits) to provide the PI Team with a
preliminary cost of the investigation Mission Peculiar Costs (MPCs) prior to the
subsequent ROSES Investigation-specific call selection. This costing information will

A.54-18
provide the PI Team with the knowledge of how much funding they have available for
instrument/modeling team selection.
After the Step-2 science concept proposal selection, the PI team shall provide NASA
with a full detailed out-year (years 1-5) budget for their involvement (and that of other
supporting team members such as post-docs or graduate students) in the management
of the investigation prior to the release of the subsequent ROSES Investigation-specific
call. This budget must be approved prior to the review panel for the subsequent ROSES
Investigation-specific call.
The PI and their full team have a year after investigation start (when the full science
team is funded) to make changes to the cost profile within the cap. After the science
team is selected in the subsequent ROSES investigation-specific call, the investigation’s
detailed planning and finalized budget will be part of the Investigation Implementation
Plan (IIP) due at Investigation Confirmation Review (ICR).
Awards to non-governmental organizations will be federal assistance, consequently,
depending on the level of NASA involvement, the award could be a cooperative
agreement or grant. The Earth System Science Pathfinder Program Office (ESSP PO)
will manage the EVS-4 investigations in accordance with chapter 5 of NPR 7120.8, as
well as other NASA policies and procedures. A mandatory ICR shall be conducted
within 1 year of science team selection, which will formally finalize investigation science
requirements and cost constraints. Mandatory Flight Readiness Reviews/Operational
Readiness Reviews (FRR/ORR) for all suborbital operations, including those involving
non-NASA platforms, will be carried out in accordance with NASA NPR 7900.3. A NASA
HQ/ESD-convened Midterm Review, to assess overall progress, including data analysis
and publication status, must be passed successfully no later than three years after
investigation award/initiation.
6. Summary of Key Information
A notional calendar for the multiple ROSES elements is provided in Appendix C.
Maximum funding per investigation $30M (large) or $15M (small) over life cycle (real
year dollars)
Number of new awards pending NASA intends to select at least 1 small ($15M)
adequate proposals of merit and 1 large ($30M) investigation. Total number of
awards will be determined by the number of small
and large proposals selected. The total funds
awarded will be approximately $126M.
Maximum duration of awards 5 years (starting after science team selection in
subsequent ROSES investigation specific calls)
Due date for mandatory Step-1 See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
proposal
Page limit for Science/Technical 4 pages
section of the mandatory Step-1
proposal
Due date for Step-2 proposal See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA

A.54-19
 Page limit for the
Science/Technical section of the
Step-2 proposal
Investigation selection
Science team selection
Planning date for start of
investigation
Mission end date no later than
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Guidance for the preparation of
proposal for Dual-Anonymous Peer
Review
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
electronic proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
electronic proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
element
Appendices follow:
Appendix A: Earth Science Division Focus Areas
Appendix B: EVS-4 Sample Measurement Requirement Matrix from ARCSIX white
paper
Appendix C: EVS-4 Notional Calendar of the Investigation-specific ROSES element
Process
15 pages
October/November 2023
Winter 2024
No sooner than Winter 2024
Five years from science team selection in
subsequent ROSES investigation specific calls
This program is relevant to the Earth science
strategic goals and subgoals in NASA’s Strategic
Plan. Proposals relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of ROSES-
2022.
See Section 3.4 and
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-
anonymous-peer-review
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted
https://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at 202-479-9376 or nspires-help@nasaprs.com)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-EVS4
Barry Lefer
Telephone: (202) 358-3857
Email: barry.lefer@nasa.gov
Melissa Yang Martin
Telephone: (757) 629-8478
Email: melissa.yang@nasa.gov
A.54-20
 Appendix A
Earth Science Division Focus Areas

Atmospheric Composition
Upper Atmosphere Research
Tropospheric Composition
Radiation Sciences
Atmospheric Composition Modeling and Analysis

Weather and Atmospheric Dynamics

Atmospheric Dynamics and Precipitation Science
Satellite Data Assimilation
Short-term Prediction Research and Transition

Climate Variability and Change

Cryospheric Sciences
Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction
Physical Oceanography

Water and Energy Cycle

Terrestrial Hydrology

Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems

Biological Diversity
Land-cover and Land-use Change
Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry
Terrestrial Ecology

Earth Surface and Interior

Space Geodesy

A.54-21
 Appendix B
EVS-4 Sample Measurement Requirement Matrix
(Excerpt from Arctic Radiation-Cloud-Aerosol-Surface
Interaction Experiment (ARCSIX) white paper)

A.54-22
 Appendix B continued

Key: SQs – Science Questions

A.54-23
 Appendix C
EVS-4 Notional Calendar of the EVS-4 Program Multiple ROSES Elements Process

Science-Concept Proposal (This ROSES program element)

Release of A.54 EVS-4 ROSES element final text December 2022

Mandatory EVS-4 Step-1 proposals due See Tables 2 and 3

EVS-4 Step-2 anonymized proposals due See Tables 2 and 3
Proposal Dual Anonymous Peer Review complete August 2023
Selection of approximately five EVS-4 investigations October 2023
(ESSP PO funds PI team)
After proposal selection (awards from this ROSES Program Element)
EVS-4 investigation scoping November 2023
Investigation-Specific ROSES program elements (Planned for
ROSES-2023)
Investigation specific ROSES elements released Winter 2023
Investigation specific ROSES proposals due Spring/summer
2024
Proposal Review complete Fall/winter
2024/2025
Selection of remaining investigation Science Team Members Winter/spring 2025
(ESSP PO starts process to fully fund first full year of EVS-4
investigations)

A.54-24
A.55 LAND-COVER/LAND-USE CHANGE: SARI SYNTHESIS
NOTICE: Amended October 17, 2022. This amendment releases this
new program element in ROSES-2022 with an aim to select one team
to develop a synthesis of SARI research for Southeast Asia. The
inclusion of remote sensing is a requirement; proposals that don't
address remote sensing, as described in Section 3.1, will be rejected
without review. Notices of intent are requested by December 1, 2022
and proposals are due January 18, 2023.
1. The Land-Cover/Land-Use Change Program
The primary goal of the NASA Land-Cover/Land-Use Change (LCLUC) program is to
use satellite observations for improving our understanding of LCLUC as an essential
component of Earth System Science. The LCLUC program includes studies that detect
and quantify changes in land cover and land use; examine their impact on the environment
and interactions with climate and society; and model future scenarios of LCLUC impacts.
The LCLUC program is developing interdisciplinary research combining aspects of
physical, social, and economic sciences, with a high level of societal relevance, using
remote sensing data methods and tools. The LCLUC program aims to develop the
capability for annual satellite-based inventories of land cover and land use to
characterize and monitor changes at the Earth’s surface. Social and economic science
research plays an important role in the LCLUC program. It includes quantifying the
impacts of changes in human behavior at various levels on land use, land-use impacts
on society, or how the social and economic aspects of land-use systems adapt to
climate change. LCLUC, ubiquitous worldwide, is having a significant impact on the
environment, the provision of ecosystem services, and human livelihoods at the
national, regional, or global scale, often with economic and policy implications. The
policy implications can, for example, be in terms of current policies that have prompted
or exacerbated land-use change or policy changes that would lead to sustainable land-
use practices.
Additional information on the NASA LCLUC program can be found at
http://lcluc.hq.nasa.gov or by contacting Dr. Garik Gutman, the NASA Land-Cover/Land-
Use Change Program Manager, see Section 6 below.
2. Scope of This Program Element
The objective of this call is to synthesize the accumulated knowledge from previous
studies in Southeast Asia under the NASA South/Southeast Asia Research Initiative
(SARI; http://sari.umd.edu).
Southeast Asia is a region where land use is extremely dynamic. The previously funded
SARI projects on Southeast Asia in ROSES-16 and -18 used satellite remote sensing to
identify where land-use changes are occurring and to examine their drivers and impacts
on physical and social systems. See http://lcluc.hq.nasa.gov for the links to the ROSES
selections on the bottom of the front page (under the heading "ROSES Selections") and
use the Mapper to see the project research areas at
https://lcluc.umd.edu/content/projects-research-area-map-v2.

A.55-1
This program element aims at synthesizing the existing research to assess the current
state and trends of land-use change in the Southeast Asia region. Proposed
investigations should target enhancing the conceptual underpinning of LCLUC science
in the region and summarizing state-of-the-art knowledge, which will advance our
understanding of the processes, drivers and impacts with the ultimate goal of
developing new understanding.
Proposals should provide a conceptual framework or generalized theory appropriate to
land transformations in the region, or a comprehensive assessment of some specific
aspect of LCLUC that could inform future investigations or policy interventions. The
proposals will bring together research findings, data, methods, theories, practices, and
application projects in the region, undertaken under earlier NASA LCLUC SARI-focused
solicitations (see https://lcluc.hq.nasa.gov) and by other international, regional, national,
and local agencies. Through this call for proposals, the LCLUC program solicits creative
and innovative approaches to scientific, policy-relevant synthesis. NASA plans to fund
only one proposal. The selected proposal team will assess past and recent trends in
land-use change and apply theoretical and analytical frameworks appropriate for
understanding the physical and socioeconomic interactions that influence LCLUC. The
synthesis must address both the biophysical and socioeconomic aspects of land-use
change and encompass the various major land-use change sectors, such as forests,
agriculture, urban, and wetlands. The results must highlight how the research findings
could help develop more sustainable land-management strategies. The proposal team
must be multi-institutional and interdisciplinary, with at least three senior team members
having diverse expertise, and include international partners from the region (on a no-
exchange-of-funds basis see Section 4) to provide regional insights and perspectives.
Proposals must present a plan for a minimum of one regional workshop per year (in
person or virtual depending on the situation in the region), which would involve the
broad participation of regional and international researchers. The regional workshops
will be coordinated with and supported through the Global Observations of Forest Cover
and Land-use Dynamics (GOFC-GOLD) SARI Southeast Asia regional network budget,
i.e., no budget for these workshops needs to be included in the proposal except for
travel by U.S. investigators. It is recommended that the workshops include a regional
synthesis kick-off meeting in Year 1 to refine the design and scope of the synthesis, a
project team progress meeting in Year 2, and a synthesis summary meeting at the
beginning of Year 3. The presentations, scientific discussions and findings from these
workshops in the region will be summarized in meeting reports and SARI special issues
in peer-reviewed journals.
Synthesis outputs may include: i) information on data and findings that inform policy
debates about land-use issues of regional to national importance and sustainable land
management in the region; ii) data products and publications that contribute to LCLUC
assessments in the region, including socioeconomic benefits; and iii) identification of
emerging technologies that have stimulated R&D and contributed to the understanding
of the linkages between the LCLUC and ecosystem services. Prior to submitting a
proposal, each team is encouraged to engage with the GOFC-GOLD Regional
Networks in the Southeast Asia region (https://gofcgold.org/).

A.55-2
3. Principles of the LCLUC Program to be Reflected in Proposals
3.1 Remote Sensing Component
The NASA LCLUC program will only support proposals with a strong remote sensing
component. The use of observations and data products from U.S. and/or non-U.S.
Earth-observing satellites is a requirement for each proposed investigation.
Special attention should be given to the dissemination of data and products associated
with the proposed research. The LCLUC management will work with selected projects
to create a metadata identifier and help disseminate the products through the NASA
LCLUC website and NASA's Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) at
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/eosdis/daacs.
3.2 The Role of Social and Economic Sciences in the NASA LCLUC Program
The LCLUC program includes studies that quantify land-cover and land-use changes;
examine their impact on the environment, climate, and society; or model future
scenarios of land-cover and land-use change and its various impacts and feedbacks.
Humans play an important role in modifying land cover and are instrumental in land-use
change. To understand the drivers and the processes affected by land use, the
socioeconomic processes need to be considered, and, as such, a socioeconomic
component needs to be an integral part of each proposal.
4. Eligibility and Expectations
NASA's policy welcomes the opportunity to conduct research with non-U.S.
organizations on a cooperative, no-exchange-of-funds basis. Although team members
employed by non-U.S. organizations are identified as part of a proposal submitted by a
U.S. organization, NASA funding may not be used to support research efforts by non-
U.S. organizations at any level, including travel expenses. Further information on foreign
participation is provided in Section III(c) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, ROSES
FAQ #14 on this topic, and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to read the Guidebook for Proposers at
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocfo/gpc/regulations_and_guidance, particularly Appendix
B for the definitions of team member roles like Collaborator vs. Co-Investigator.
It is expected that the proposal funded through this program element will result in peer-
reviewed publications quantifying high impact LCLUC around the world. In addition to
quantifying LCLUC and its impact, it is expected that the proposals will develop, test
and publish methods for studying LCLUC. It is expected that the funded project will
make available any data products generated under this research, following the data
management plan outlined in the proposal and given guidelines in A.1 the Earth
Science Research Program Overview.
The LCLUC program evaluates a proposal's responsiveness to the above aspects in
terms of meaningful integration of social and economic perspectives, methods, and data
(quantitative and/or qualitative) with innovative analyses of land system dynamics in the
proposed research. In this context, simple treatments of human dimensions, such as
mere correlations of socioeconomic variables in lieu of rich empirical analyses linked to
theorized social dynamics, or summary descriptions of potential societal or policy

A.55-3
benefits of the proposed study without demonstrable linkages to the same, are not
considered adequately responsive to the socioeconomic aspect of the program.
Successful proposals will fully integrate social and economic sciences into the research
questions, data used, and analytical approaches to couple remote sensing observations
of land-cover with research on the human dimensions of land-use change. Proposers
must familiarize themselves with the existing literature and make a case for how their
proposal offers improved methods, advances land-use science, or could inform land-
use policy.
Funded investigators will be expected to attend one NASA LCLUC Program Science
Team Meeting per year. PIs of successful proposals will be expected to provide and
update project team members’ information for the LCLUC webpage associated with the
funded research and contribute webinars when requested. Proposers should check the
freely available commercial data at (https://earthdata.nasa.gov/esds/small-satellite-data-
buy-program) prior to proposing any other new data that is only available with
associated costs.
5. Programmatic Information
5.1 Period of Performance for Selected Proposals
Research awards will be for three-year period of performance with annual funding
contingent upon satisfactory progress reporting and available funding.
5.2 Funding Available for Support of Selected Proposals
A total of approximately $0.7M per year for three years to fund one selected team for
Southeast Asia is expected for this opportunity. For information on the planned schedule
for due dates, selections and starting date for selected projects please see the Section 6
below.
A budget must be included for domestic travel to at least one LCLUC Science Team
Meeting in the Washington D.C. area per year. Sufficient international travel should be
included in the proposal budget for productive collaboration between U.S. investigators
and the non-U.S. partners. Letters of endorsement from foreign partners, with financial
commitments, must be submitted along with the proposals by the due date given in
Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022.
5.3 Content and Evaluation
Proposals should put the proposed work into synthesis context and should provide the
science question to be addressed, the rationale for the study and the proposed research
methodology, the anticipated results and deliverables, and the schedule. Proposals
must include a budget and the associated explanation, as described in the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation.
Proposals must be submitted electronically by the due date in full compliance with the
requirements specified in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. Where the guidance differs, the order of precedence for
proposers is the following: this document takes precedence, followed by A.1 the Earth
Science Research Program Overview, followed by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
and, finally, the Proposer’s Guidebook. Proposers are strongly encouraged to use the

A.55-4
templates for the table of work effort and current and pending support that have been
provided by the Earth Science Division.
All proposals will be submitted to the NASA peer review process in accordance with the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation using the criteria as defined in Appendix D of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers with the following modifications:
In addition to the evaluation of relevance described in the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers, the evaluation of Relevance will include an assessment of the extent to
which the proposal successfully includes social and economic sciences, as described in
Section 3.2.
The inclusion of remote sensing is not an evaluation criterion but is a compliance
requirement: proposals that don't address remote sensing, as described in Section 3.1,
will be rejected without review.
The external peer-review will be followed by a programmatic review of the proposal, in
which NASA will assess program balance across the competitive range of proposals.
The funding recommendation will then be forwarded to the Selecting Official for
confirmation. NASA then will announce the official notifications via NSPIRES.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget ~ $0.7M
for new awards
Number of new awards pending 1
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for NOI See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of
July, 2023
investigation
Page limit for the central Science- 15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and the
Technical-Management section NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
Relevance This program is relevant to the Earth Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA
General information and overview See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
of this solicitation
General requirements for content See A.1 the Earth Science Research Program
of proposals Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of
ROSES-2022.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
submission of proposals the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.

A.55-5
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program, both of whom share this
address:
Earth Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-SARI
Garik Gutman
Telephone: 202-358-0260
Email: ggutman@nasa.gov
Krishna Vadrevu
Email: krishna.p.vadrevu@nasa.gov
A.55-6
APPENDIX B. HELIOPHYSICS RESEARCH PROGRAM
B.1 HELIOPHYSICS RESEARCH PROGRAM OVERVIEW
NOTICE: Clarified, February 25, 2022. Though the template for Current
and Pending Support is required for PIs and all Co-Is, regardless of
time commitment, the template for summary table of work effort is not
required, merely encouraged, see Section 1.11. New text in bold.
1. Overview
NASA’s Heliophysics’ overarching goal is to understand the Sun and its interactions
with the Earth and the Solar System, including space weather. In this framework, the
Heliophysics Research Program is guided by Science 2019-2024: A Vision for Scientific
Excellence and any more up to date versions of the Science Plan (available at
https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy) and by the 2013 National Research
Council Decadal Strategy for Solar and Space Physics report, Solar and Space Physics:
A Science for a Technological Society (www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13060).
Heliophysics research addresses these recommendations by implementing a program
to achieve all of the goals and objectives in the science plan and DS report,
summarized by these combined objectives:
• Explore and characterize the physical processes in the space environment from
the Sun to the heliopause and throughout the universe
• Advance our understanding of the Sun’s activity, and the connections between
solar variability and Earth and planetary space environments, the outer reaches of
our solar system, and the interstellar medium
• Develop the knowledge and capability to detect and predict extreme conditions in
space to protect life and society and to safeguard human and robotic explorers
beyond Earth.
The Heliophysics Research Program supports investigations in all research regimes of
Heliophysics. The program supports investigations of the Sun, including processes
taking place throughout the solar interior and its atmosphere, as well as the evolution
and cyclic activity of the Sun. It supports investigations of the origin and behavior of the
solar wind, transient structures, energetic particles, and magnetic fields in the
heliosphere and their interaction with the Earth and other planets, as well as with the
interstellar medium. The program supports investigations of the physics of
magnetospheres, including fundamental interactions of plasma wave-particle
interactions and particles with guide fields, as well as coupling to the solar wind and
ionospheres. It supports investigations of the physics of the terrestrial mesosphere,
thermosphere, and ionosphere, neutral and ionized, and coupling of these phenomena
to the lower atmosphere and magnetosphere. It supports investigations focused on
processes that create space weather events, and investigations to enable a capability
for predicting future space weather events.
The Heliophysics Research Program also supports investigations that span the regimes
and address a systems approach – emphasizing the understanding of fundamental
processes and interconnections across the traditional science disciplines, on a broad
range of spatial and temporal scales. In concert with the other NASA science divisions

B.1-1
(Planetary Science, Astrophysics, Earth Science and Biological and Physical Sciences),
the program shares responsibility for learning about the Earth, our Solar System, the
Universe, and their interrelationships.
1.1 Solicited Programs
ROSES-2022 program elements are listed below. It is the overall purpose of each of
these program elements to contribute as effectively and directly as possible to the
achievement of the overarching goal and three science objectives of NASA
Heliophysics. Priority for selection is given to those proposals that most clearly
demonstrate the potential for such contributions.
The program elements are as follows:
• B.2 Heliophysics Supporting Research (HSR)
• B.3 Heliophysics Theory, Modeling, and Simulations (HTMS)
• B.4 Heliophysics Guest Investigators Open (HGIO)
• B.5 Living With a Star Science (LWS)
• B.6 Living With a Star Strategic Capabilities (LWS-SC) – not solicited this year
• B.7 Space Weather Science Applications Research 2 Operations 2 Research
(SWR2O2R)
• B.8 Heliophysics Technology and Instrument Development for Science (H-TIDeS)
• B.9 Heliophysics Low Cost Access to Space (H-LCAS)
• B.10 Heliophysics Flight Opportunities Studies (H-FOS)
• B.11 Heliophysics Flight Opportunities for Research & Technology (H-FORT)
• B.12 Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancements (HDEE)
• B.13 Heliophysics U.S. Participating Investigator (H-USPI) – not solicited this year
• B.14 Heliophysics Early Career Investigators Program (ECIP)
• B.15 Heliophysics Innovation in Technology and Science (HITS)
• B.16 Heliophysics AI/ML-Ready Data (H-ARD)
• B.17 Interdisciplinary Science for Eclipse (ISE) 2024
• B.18 Living With a Star (LWS) Tools and Methods (LWSTM) – not solicited this
year
• B.19 Living With a Star Infrastructure (LWSIS) – not solicited this year
• B.20 Heliophysics Tools and Methods (H-TM)
• B.21 Citizen Science Investigations (H-CSI)
• B.22 Space Weather Centers of Excellence (SWxC)
Each element above contains element-specific requirements, e.g., scope, content,
length. General Heliophysics-specific requirements are included in this document in
Section 1. Common requirements for all ROSES elements are found in the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and The Guidebook for Proposers.
The order of precedence is the following: the particular ROSES Element B.2 through
B.22 followed by the Heliophysics Overview, ROSES Element B.1 (this document),
followed by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, followed by The Proposer's
Guidebook. Proposers should be familiar with all of these resources and should
especially read each element (above) carefully.

B.1-2
 1.1.1 What's New in Appendix B This Year
Five new program elements are introduced to Appendix B in ROSES-2022: B.16
Heliophysics AI/ML-Ready Data (H-ARD), B.17 ISE 2024, B.20 Heliophysics Tools and
Methods (HTM), B.21 Heliophysics Citizen Science Investigations (HCSI), and B.22
Space Weather Centers of Excellence (SWxCs).
HPD is now requiring a standardized format for a researcher’s Current and Pending
Support information (See Section 1.11).
Other changes in or additions to the Heliophysics program include:
B.15 Heliophysics Innovation in Technology and Science (HITS) continues through
ROSES-2022 with proposals accepted throughout the year at any time and evaluated
quarterly. Additional details can be found in Section 1.4. New this year, B.12
Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancements (H-DEE) and B.20 Heliophysics Tools
and Methods (HTM) are also accepting proposals throughout the year and evaluated
quarterly.
Proposals submitted to the Guest Investigator Open program and the new Heliophysics
AI/ML-Ready Data program will be evaluated using dual-anonymous peer review in
which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the reviewers, but the reviewers
are not given the identity of the proposers. This is described in Sections IV(b)i and V(b)
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and Section 1.9, below.
The sufficiency of the data management plan (DMP) will continue to be evaluated as
part of Merit and thus may have a bearing on whether or not the proposal is selected
(see Section 1.6).
1.2 General Proposal Content
Proposals require three core aspects: (1) a clear statement of the specific objective(s),
(2) a justification of why the objective(s) is important, and (3) a description of how the
objective(s) will be achieved. Successful proposals clearly lay out each aspect for
reviewers. They often lead with clear, achievable objectives and then just enough
background to justify why the objectives are important, followed by an extensive
detailed description of how the objectives will be achieved.
Proposals should be focused enough to be achievable within the lifetime of the award.
Proposals should include adequate personnel commitments to ensure achievable
results.
1.3 Two-Step Process
Proposal submission to many elements in Heliophysics use a two-step proposal
submission process. Use of the two-step process increases the notice provided to
potential reviewers. The overall description of a two-step process can be found in
Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
In the two-step process a Step-1 proposal is required. Potential reviewers are solicited
based on the Step-1 proposal. The proposal team members may not be changed
between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals unless prior approval is obtained from the
Program Officer of the element. The title and broad science goals of the proposal may

B.1-3
not be changed such that they would significantly affect the scientific or technical
expertise required to properly evaluate a proposal. Changes in a proposal that impact
the review will result in a proposal being declared non-compliant.
All Step-1 and Step-2 proposals for the Heliophysics elements must be submitted
electronically by the due date (see Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES). Both Step-1 and Step-2
proposals must be submitted by the organization’s Authorized Organizational
Representative (AOR). No budget or other elements are required for a Step-1 proposal.
Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a Step-2 proposal.
All Heliophysics programs with Step-1 proposals will review the Step-1 proposals for
compliance and will require a description that is limited to the 4000-character text box
on the NSPIRES cover page that includes (1) the science goals and objectives, and (2)
the proposed methodology. All compliant proposals submitted to these calls will be
"invited" to submit a Step-2 proposal.
1.4 Rolling Submissions - Quarterly Evaluation
Proposals to B.12 Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancements (H-DEE), B.15
Heliophysics Innovation in Technology and Science (HITS) and B.20 Heliophysics Tools
and Methods (HTM) may be submitted at any time without any preliminary statement
such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1 proposal and they will be evaluated quarterly.
Certain restrictions related to duplicate proposals and resubmissions are described
below. The NSPIRES page for this program element displays a "Proposals Due" date,
but that is simply the end date for the current ROSES, after which proposals may be
submitted to the program element with the same name in the next ROSES. Programs
such as these will review proposals quarterly. Proposals must be submitted
electronically via NSPIRES or Grants.gov by the organization’s Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR). A budget and other specified information is
required.
• A PI may at most submit two distinct (different) proposals to B.15 in any given
ROSES year.
• A PI may resubmit the same or slightly modified proposal to B.15 HITS at most
once in any given ROSES year.
• A proposal with more than 50% new content is counted as a new proposal and
not a resubmitted proposal.
1.5 Multiple Submissions and Duplication
Except for B.12 HDEE, B.15 HITS and B.20 HTM, see above, proposers are limited to
one submission per Principal Investigator (PI or Science PI) per program element, i.e.,
they may submit one and only one proposal as PI to each, unless otherwise specified in
the program call.
Proposers may not submit Step-2 (or full) proposals for the same or essentially the
same work to more than one program element concurrently. Each proposal may be
submitted only once until it is accepted, declined, or withdrawn. This covers all program
elements in Appendix B and also all cross-divisional ROSES program elements
(Appendix F) supported by the Heliophysics Division. This prohibition includes switching
the PI and a Co-I while submitting the same or essentially the same work.

B.1-4
This prohibition is active for a particular submitted proposal until the PI is notified that
the proposal was accepted or declined, or until the proposal is withdrawn. The
prohibition on duplicate proposals applies across ROSES years as well (e.g., a
duplicate of a pending ROSES-2021 proposal may not be submitted in response to
ROSES-2022). If a second proposal is submitted while a duplicate proposal is still
pending in another program element, only the first proposal will be evaluated; the
duplicate proposal may not be evaluated or considered and may be returned without
review.
1.6 Data Management Plans and Archiving
Proposers should refer to Section IIc of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and
Scientific Information policy (SPD-41) for a summary of expectations and requirements
for the sharing of publications, data, and software produced as part of ROSES awards.
To broaden access to the results of NASA-funded research, proposals submitted to
program elements in Appendix B must include a data management plan (DMP) unless
otherwise stated in the program element. If the proposed work would not produce data
suitable for deposition in a public archive, then that should be explicitly justified in the
DMP. Individual program elements may provide instructions that amplify or supersede
these default requirements. For example, for some program elements, the nature of the
work is inexorably linked to the handling of data, so the DMP is part of the page-limited
Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section of the proposal, e.g., B.7 Space
Weather Science Applications and B.12 Heliophysics Data Environment Emphasis.
With the exception of elements like those listed above where it explicitly says otherwise,
all proposals to any of the ROSES elements that require DMPs must place it in a
special section of the proposal, not to exceed two pages in length, entitled "Data
Management Plan" immediately following the references and citations for the S/T/M
portion of the proposal. Formatting requirements for DMPs are the same as for the
S/T/M section. When appropriate or required by the program element, letters of support
from the Heliophysics Data Archives: the Solar Data Analysis Center (SDAC), and the
Space Physics Data Facility (SPDF) may be included in a Statements of Commitment
and Letters of Support, Feasibility and Endorsement section of the proposal (see
ROSES Summary of Solicitation, Table 1).
Proposers requiring a DMP are strongly encouraged to use the HPD DMP template,
that may be downloaded as a Word document, from the SARA web page at:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-
proposals.
The DMP must cover any data needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-
reviewed publications, particularly data underlying figures, maps, and tables, as well as
data and developed software required for the replication/reproduction of published
results.
For proposals that use non-mission data (e.g., laboratory results, Earth-based
observations) that are not publicly available (in any publicly accessible archive, in the
literature, etc.), the project is expected to make the data available following the Data
Management Plan guidelines.

B.1-5
"Data" does not include preliminary and other unpublished data, data in prepublication
documents, private communications, or certain other types of information that have
been specifically exempted from the DMP requirement.
In the case of a project that would produce no data, as defined above, or only data
specifically exempted, the DMP must state that no data preservation or data sharing is
needed and must also explain why. In a case where no appropriate archive exists for a
particular data set, the DMP should discuss alternative methods for making the data
publicly available.
DMPs will be reviewed as part of the proposal review process. Funded researchers,
research institutions, and NASA centers are responsible for ensuring and demonstrating
compliance with the DMPs approved as part of their awards. Awardees who do not fulfill
the intent of their DMPs may have continuing funds withheld and this may be
considered in the evaluation of future proposals.
Software, whether a stand-alone program, an enhancement to existing code, or a
module that interfaces with existing codes, created as part of a ROSES award, should
be made publicly available when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when there is
scientific utility in doing so. Stand-alone code that is not straightforward to implement, or
whose utility is significantly outweighed by the costs to share it, is not expected to be
made available. SMD expects that the source code, with associated documentation
sufficient to enable use of the code, will be made publicly available in either of the two
Heliophysics Archives (for mission-specific code, when appropriate), or an appropriate
community-recognized depository. Archiving software in a public repository does not
require the proposer to maintain the code. Awards that derive from proposals that
include plans to post code will contain a permissive open-source license reflecting this
expectation. This expectation extends to three types of software, defined as follows:
Short Name Name Description Examples
Libraries Libraries and Generic tools implementing Numerical Recipes, NumPy,
toolkits well-known algorithms, general FFTs, LAPACK, scikit-
providing statistical analysis learn, AstroPy, GDAL
or visualization, and so on,
that are incorporated in
other software categories.
Analysis Analysis, post- Generalized software (not Stand-alone image
software processing, or low-level libraries) used to processing, topology analysis,
visualization manipulate measurements vector-field analysis, satellite
software or model results to visualize analysis tools, and so on
or gain understanding.
Frameworks Modeling Multicomponent software Community Earth System
frameworks systems that incorporate a Model (CESM) is a collection
variety of models and of coupled models including
couple them together in a atmospheric, oceanographic,
complex way. sea ice, land surface, and
other models

B.1-6
1.7 Data Eligibility
All spacecraft mission data must be available in the SDAC, SPDF, or an equivalent,
publicly accessible archive, at least 30 days prior to the full proposal submission
deadline, unless otherwise specified in the program call. If proposers are utilizing a
publicly accessible archive other than SPDF or SDAC, then a link to that archive must
be included in the proposal.
1.8 Organizing Science Reviews
Heliophysics has established two questions that must be answered for all proposals
submitted to Elements in Appendix B on the NSPIRES cover page. The answers define
the Research Regime and Science Topic for the proposal and help to organize the
evaluation and peer review. Unless otherwise specified in the program call, the values
will default to what is listed here. The default values for Research Regime are Sun,
Heliosphere, Magnetosphere, Ionosphere-Thermosphere-Mesosphere (ITM) and
System-Interdisciplinary. The default values for Science Topic are listed below.
1. Solar Interior
2. Photosphere
3. Solar Transient Events
4. Solar Atmosphere - Corona
5. Particle Acceleration, Transport, Modulation
6. Turbulence, Waves, Composition
7. Interplanetary CMEs / Magnetic Clouds
8. Outer Heliosphere - Interstellar Boundary
9. Dayside Magnetosphere
10. Inner Magnetosphere
11. Magnetotail
12. Ionosphere – Atmosphere Coupling
13. Neutral Atmosphere
14. Solar-Heliosphere Coupling
15. Solar Wind – Magnetosphere Coupling
16. Magnetosphere – Ionosphere Coupling
17. Solar–Ionosphere/Atmosphere Coupling
18. Multi-disciplinary
Note: Do not choose Heliosphere meaning Heliophysics; they are not synonymous. This
wastes time and resources to redirect; such misdirected proposals may be returned
without review.
1.9 Dual-anonymous Reviews
SMD is strongly committed to ensuring that the review of proposals is performed in an
equitable and fair manner that reduces the impacts of any unconscious biases. To this
end and motivated by a successful pilot program conducted for the Hubble Space
Telescope, proposals for the Heliophysics AI/ML-Ready Data and Heliophysics Guest
Investigator Open programs will be evaluated using dual-anonymous peer review
(DAPR) process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the
members on the review panel, but the reviewers are not explicitly provided the identity
of the proposing teams or organizations until after the evaluation of the merit, relevance

B.1-7
and cost reasonableness of the proposal. The overarching objective of DAPR is to
mitigate unconscious bias in the evaluation of the proposal.
Proposers to H-ARD and HGIO must adhere to the instructions in the call on how to
prepare proposals so as to allow dual-anonymous peer review, and detailed instructions
for the preparation of proposals will be posted on the NSPIRES page for this ROSES
element and at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review.
Proposers should consult the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under
"Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for DAPR program elements for detailed
instructions on writing proposals appropriate for dual-anonymous peer review. Neither
Step-1, if required, nor Step-2/full proposals may include anything that identifies the
names of investigators or their institutions. When submitting Step-2/full proposals all
proposers must also upload a separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
(E&R) document, which is not anonymized. The "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
contains complete information on how to write this separate document.
The NSPIRES cover pages or "front matter" will not be seen by peer reviewers (i.e., PI
responses to various queries regarding programmatic content such as Budget, Proposal
Team, International participation, and Business Data). This has two impacts: (1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and (2) proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" (E&R) document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
identifying information.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals without taking into account the
proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after the evaluation is finalized
for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the E&R documents. The panel will
assess the qualifications of the team and verify that all resources discussed in the
proposal body are indeed available and assess the team capabilities required to
execute a given proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key factors for PIs to keep in mind are:
• Step-1 and Step-2 Proposals may not include language that identifies the names
of investigators or their institutions, as discussed in the Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals
• PIs are required to upload along with their Step-2/full proposal an additional
"Expertise and Resource – Not Anonymized" PDF through NSPIRES as a
separate upload when submitting the Step-2/full proposal.
• SMD understands that dual-anonymous peer review represents a major shift in
the evaluation of H-ARD and HGIO proposals and, as such, there may be
occasional slips in writing anonymized proposals. However, SMD reserves the
right to return without review proposals that are particularly egregious in terms of
the identification of the proposing team.
1.10 Citizen Science Projects
Citizen science is a form of open collaboration in which individuals or organizations
participate voluntarily in the scientific process. Proposers to any ROSES program

B.1-8
element are invited to incorporate citizen science and crowdsourcing methodologies into
their submissions, where such methodologies will advance the objectives of the
proposed investigation. The current SMD Policy on citizen science, describes standards
for evaluating proposed and funded SMD citizen science projects. For more information
see Section 3 H.R.6414 - Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Act of 2016, which
authorizes federal agencies to utilize crowdsourcing and citizen science and the
https://science.nasa.gov/citizenscience webpage, that provides information about
existing SMD-funded projects, including how to sign up for the NASA-SOLVE email
listserve. Proposers who are including a Citizen Science element must select the
NSPIRES checkbox indicating Citizen Science, to ensure an appropriate review of the
citizen science methodology.
1.11 Standardized Current and Pending Document [Clarified, February 25, 2022]
Beginning with ROSES-2022, all proposals to all Appendix B Program Elements must
use the standard Heliophysics template for Current and Pending Support for PIs and all
Co-Is, regardless of time commitment. PDF, MS Excel and MS Word templates of this
table and instructions can be found at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-
heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-proposals. Proposals that do not include a C&P
table in the correct format, even if determined to be selected or selectable for funding,
may not be funded until an appropriate C&P table is submitted. Proposers are
encouraged (but not required) to use the template provided for the mandatory
summary table of work effort. [Added February 25, 2022]
1.12 High-Risk/High Impact
Proposers to any ROSES program element are invited to submit proposals that are high
risk – high impact, or include high risk – high impact components, as appropriate for the
scope or conduct of the investigation. For more information see Section V(b) of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
1.13 Award Types
NASA Heliophysics primarily awards grants, Inter-Agency Transfers (IATs), and awards
to NASA centers, as these are the most appropriate to the nature of the work. These
are the default for program elements in Appendix B, unless stated otherwise in a
specific program element. NASA does not anticipate awarding contracts in response to
proposals submitted to program elements in Appendix B because it would not be
appropriate for the nature of the work solicited.
2. Program Elements
2.1 Introduction
A brief description of each program element offered in the Heliophysics Research
Program is given below. The intent of the following summaries is to give the prospective
proposer some insight into the element’s purpose within the context of the overall
program structure. Detailed descriptions of each element are to be found in Program

B.1-9
Elements B.2 through B.22. Please note that the numbering and names of the program
elements may have changed from ROSES last year.
2.2 Heliophysics Supporting Research
The Heliophysics Supporting Research (HSR) program solicits research investigations
of significant magnitude that employ a variety of techniques to address Heliophysics
goals and objectives. The investigations that will be of highest priority to the HSR
program will be those that use data from current or historical NASA spacecraft, or from
non-NASA data, together with theory, modeling and/or numerical simulation to address
one of the four Heliophysics Decadal Survey goals. Theory, modeling, and simulation
must be substantiated with, and guided by, data. Innovative ideas and techniques are
welcome. The Heliophysics Supporting Research program is described in Program
Element B.2.
2.3 Heliophysics Theory, Modeling, and Simulations
The Heliophysics Theory, Modeling, and Simulations (HTMS) Program uses numerical
simulations and modeling synergistically with data analyses and rigorous theory
development to solve the fundamental problems of Heliophysics. The HTMS program is
described in Program Element B.3.
2.4 Heliophysics Guest Investigators
The Heliophysics Guest Investigator Open (H-GIO) program is intended to maximize the
scientific return from operating missions of the Heliophysics System Observatory (HSO)
by providing support for research that is beyond the scope of work of the mission
science teams. All H-GIO investigations must be intensive data analysis efforts that
provide specific justification how any additional resources (e.g. simulations, secondary
data sets, or machine learning tools) help analyze HSO observations. H-GIO was
evaluated in 2020 and 2021 using Dual-Anonymous Review and this will continue this
year (see Section 1.9). The Heliophysics Guest Investigators open program (H-GIO) is
described in Program Element B.4.
2.5 Living With a Star Science
The Living With a Star (LWS) Program emphasizes the science necessary to
understand those aspects of the Sun and Earth’s space environment that affect life and
society. The ultimate goal of the LWS Program is to provide a scientific understanding
of the system that leads to predictive capability of the space environment conditions at
Earth, other planetary systems, and in the interplanetary medium. To ensure this, the
LWS Science program solicits proposals for Focus Teams to conduct coordinated large-
scale investigations that cross discipline and technique boundaries and have a direct
impact on life and society. The details of the Living With a Star (LWS) Science program
are described in Program Element B.5.
2.6 Living With a Star Strategic Capabilities
A primary goal of NASA’s LWS Program is the development of first-principles-based
models for the coupled Sun-Earth and Sun-Solar System, similar in spirit to the first-
principles models for the lower terrestrial atmosphere. Such models can act as tools for
science investigations, as prototypes and test beds for prediction and specification

B.1-10
capabilities, as frameworks for linking disparate data sets at vantage points throughout
the Sun-Solar System, and as strategic planning aids to enable exploration of outer
space and testing new mission concepts. The development of these models is generally
conducted in terms of Strategic Capabilities and is described in Program Element B.6.
The LWS-SC Program is not being solicited in ROSES-2022. It is anticipated that it will
be next solicited in 2024.
2.7 Space Weather Science Applications
In response to the National Space Weather Action Plan (SWAP), NASA established the
Space Weather Science Applications Program (SWxSA). The component of SWxSA
that addresses the aspect of transitioning knowledge between research and operations
is reflected in the SWxSA Research-to-Operations-to-Research (R2O2R) program. For
the purpose of this opportunity, NASA, NOAA, and NSF working under the tri-agency
Space Weather MOU, have determined that the focus of this year’s call is open. Please
note that the proposal, in order to demonstrate relevance to R2O2R, must address how
the research will directly advance the information needed by users of space weather
information in the proposed focus area. The Space Weather Science Applications
R2O2R Program Element is described in B.7.
2.8 Heliophysics Technology and Instrument Development for Science
The Heliophysics Technology and Instrument Development for Science (HTIDeS)
program seeks to advance the development of technologies and their application to
enable investigation of key heliophysics science questions. This is done through
incubating innovative concepts and development of prototype technologies. It is
intended that technologies developed through HTIDeS then be proposed to H-LCAS, H-
FOS, or H-FORT to mature by demonstration in a relevant environment. HTIDeS utilizes
the following sub-elements:
• Laboratory Nuclear, Atomic, and Plasma Physics (LNAPP) Program: The LNAPP
program supports studies that probe fundamental nuclear, atomic, and plasma
physical processes and produce chemical and spectroscopic measurements that
support spacecraft observations and atmospheric models.
• Instrument Technology Development (ITD) Program: This includes innovative
technology development and instruments that may be proposed as candidate
experiments for future space flight opportunities.
• Instrument Technology Development – Space Working Environment (ITD-SWE): This
supports the development of instruments and technologies specifically aimed at
characterizing the population of small space objects and their dynamics, and to
investigate the interaction of this population with a spacecraft body inasmuch as it
leads to an altered local science environment. This Instrument Technology
Development opportunity is specifically aimed at future ISS deployment opportunities,
including ISS hosted payloads, through solicitations such as HFORT (ROSES
program element B.11).
The HTIDeS program does not solicit Step-1 proposals or NOIs. Only a full proposal is
solicited. HTIDeS with sub-elements LNAPP, ITD and ITD-SWE is described in
Program Element B.8.

B.1-11
2.9 Heliophysics Low Cost Access to Space
Heliophysics Low Cost Access to Space (H-LCAS) was previously part of Flight
Opportunities for Research and Technology (H-FORT) but now has been split out on its
own. Like H-FORT, H-LCAS seeks to advance the development of technologies and
their application to enable investigation of key heliophysics science questions. H-LCAS
includes technology and associated science investigations that can be carried out with
instruments flown on suborbital rockets, stratospheric balloons, or NASA airborne
platforms, collectively referred to as Low Cost Access to Space. H-LCAS is described in
Program Element B.9.
2.10 Heliophysics Flight Opportunities Studies
The Heliophysics Flight Opportunities Studies (H-FOS) solicits proposals for studies to
enable application of new technologies (platform and/or instrumentation) to heliophysics
flight missions. H-FOS awardees will receive a 12-month award to complete the
study. NASA intends to award a range of studies across the spectrum of heliophysics
science and mission cost. Investigations must be responsive to the science goals of the
Heliophysics Division Science Goals and have identified a potential future mission
proposal.
H-FOS was previously part of Flight Opportunities for Research & Technology (H-
FORT) but now has been split out on its own. After completion, H-FOS awardees can
propose for a flight opportunity to, e.g., H-FORT (Section 2.11).
The H-FOS program does not solicit Step-1 proposals or NOIs. Only a full proposal is
solicited. H-FOS is described in Program Element B.10.
2.11 Heliophysics Flight Opportunities for Science and Technology
Heliophysics Flight Opportunities for Science and Technology (H-FORT) is the flight
opportunity for SmallSats and rideshare. H-FORT seeks to advance the development of
technologies and their application to enable investigation of key heliophysics science
questions. This is done through demonstration of innovative technologies and
associated science investigations in a relevant environment. H-FORT includes
technology and associated science investigations that can be carried out with
instruments flown on Smallsats (including CubeSats) and payloads on the International
Space Station (ISS), Department of Defense (DoD), or other rideshare opportunities.
The H-FORT program does not solicit Step-1 proposals or NOIs. Only a full proposal is
solicited. H-FORT is described in Program Element B.11.
2.12 Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancements:
The goal of the Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancements (H-DEE) program is to
enable breakthrough research in Heliophysics by providing both a state-of-the-art data
environment and necessary supporting infrastructure to maximize the scientific return of
the NASA missions. It is essential that observations be properly recorded, analyzed,
released to the general public, documented, and rapidly turned into scientific results.
This call includes two types of Data Upgrade programs – Open Data Upgrade (ODU)
and Special Data Upgrade (SDU). The latter is specifically geared toward upgrading
CubeSat data.

B.1-12
The Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancement program is described in Program
Element B.12.
2.13 Heliophysics U.S. Participating Investigator:
The purpose of the Heliophysics U.S. Participating Investigator (H-USPI) program
element is to solicit potential Heliophysics investigations in which investigators
participate as a Co-Investigator (Co-I) for an instrument, experiment, or technology
demonstration that is being built and flown by a sponsor agency other than NASA. The
Heliophysics U.S. Participating Investigator program is described in Program Element
B.13.
The H-USPI Program is not being solicited in ROSES this year. It is solicited every 3-5
years. It is anticipated that it will be next solicited in 2024.
2.14 Early Career Investigators Program:
The Early Career Investigator Program (ECIP) in Heliophysics is designed to support
outstanding scientific research and career development of scientists and engineers at
the early stage of their professional careers. The program aims to encourage innovative
research initiatives and cultivate diverse scientific leadership in Heliophysics. This
program is designed to foster the empowerment, inspiration, and education of the next
generation of space researchers. The ECIP Program is described in Program Element
B.14.
2.15 Heliophysics Innovation in Technology and Science:
This Heliophysics Innovation in Technology and Science (HITS) Program element
solicits proposals that advance the goals and objectives of NASA Heliophysics by
conducting outstanding, innovative and novel ideas to advance Heliophysics research
that can be accomplished in one year or the developed to the point that it is appropriate
to be submitted to another ROSES element in a subsequent year. The HITS Program is
described in Program Element B.15.
2.16 Heliophysics Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning-Ready Data:
This Heliophysics artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-Ready Data (H-ARD)
Program element solicits proposals that enable the advancement of the goals and
objectives of NASA Heliophysics by developing new tools and methods for the
generation of AI/ML-ready datasets from existing research and mission data. H-ARD will
be evaluated using Dual-Anonymous Review (see Section 1.9).The H-ARD program is
described in Program Element B.16.
2.17 Interdisciplinary Science for Eclipse
The purpose of the Interdisciplinary Science for Eclipse program element is to support
development of new research or enhancement of existing research, applied to the 2024
total solar eclipse visible from the northern hemisphere on April 8 th, 2024. This total
solar eclipse will be visible from North America. This eclipse is the last total eclipse
viewable from North America until August, 2045. The Interdisciplinary Science for
Eclipse program is described in Program Element B.17.

B.1-13
2.18 Living With a Star Tools and Methods
The Living With a Star (LWS) Tools and Methods (LWSTM) Program solicits tools,
techniques and/or methods that enable critically needed science advances in the area
of heliophysics research covered by LWS objectives. Proposed tools and/or methods
must be "shovel-ready", that is, able to proceed expeditiously leading to completion in
one and half years. The LWSTM program is described in Program Element B.18.
The LWS-TM Program is not being solicited in ROSES-2022. It is anticipated that it will
be next solicited in 2024.
2.19 Living With a Star Infrastructure
The Heliophysics Living with a Star Infrastructure (H-LWSIS) program solicits proposals
to train and develop the next generation of heliophysicists to address complex cross-
discipline system-wide problems that are central to understanding and modeling the
Sun-Solar System connection. This element specifically covers the administration of the
Jack Eddy Postdoctoral Fellowship (JEPF) Program over a period of 4 years and the
management of the LWS Heliophysics Summer School (HSS). The LWSIS program is
described in Program Element B.19.
The LWSIS Program is not being solicited in ROSES-2022. It is anticipated that it will be
next solicited in 2026.
2.20 Heliophysics Tools and Methods
The Heliophysics Tools and Methods (HTM) program encompasses the software tools
and method needs throughout Heliophysics, including Solar, Heliospheric,
Magnetosphere, and Ionosphere/Thermosphere/Mesosphere (ITM). As part of a
mission-oriented agency, the Tools and Methods (HTM) program preferentially seeks to
fund those efforts that directly impact NASA missions or interpretation of their data. The
HTM program is described in Program Element B.20.
2.21 Heliophysics Citizen Science Investigations
The primary goal of the Heliophysics Citizen Science Investigations (H-CSI) is to
advance the use of citizen science in heliophysics scientific research, specifically to
enhance science observations and return for the Heliophysics Big Year strategic
initiative in 2023-2024. Investigations will develop and implement capabilities to
augment and enhance NASA scientific data, knowledge, and capacity through voluntary
observations, interpretations, or other direct participation by members of the general
public. The HCSI program is described in Program Element B.21.
2.22 Space Weather Centers of Excellence
The Space Weather Centers of Excellence (SWxCs) are part of an integrated multi-
agency initiative to advance the science and technology of space weather. The SWxCs
are envisioned as addressing grand challenge goals that are ambitious in scope and
transformative in nature. This program is intended to support research that cannot be
effectively done by individual investigators or small teams, instead requiring the

B.1-14
synergistic, coordinated efforts of a research center. The SWxCs program is described
in Program Element B.22.

B.1-15
B.2 HELIOPHYSICS SUPPORTING RESEARCH
NOTICE: Amended July 22, 2022. H-SR is no longer solicited in
ROSES-2022; it has been deferred to ROSES-2023, which will be
released in February 2023. It is anticipated that the due date for
proposals will be May 2023.
1. Scope of Program
Heliophysics Supporting Research (SR) awards are research investigations of
significant magnitude that employ a combination of scientific techniques. These must
include an element of (a) theory, numerical simulation, or modeling, and an element of
(b) data analysis and interpretation of NASA-spacecraft observations.
HSR is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers interested in
this program element are encouraged to see B.1, The Heliophysics Research Program
Overview.
2. Point of Contact
Jesse Woodroffe
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0574
Email: jesse.r.woodroffe@nasa.gov

B.2-1
 B.3
SS U HELIOPHYSICS THEORY, MODELING, SIMULATIONS
NOTICE: All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template
for Current and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of
time commitment. Use of the DMP template is encouraged. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
35TU

appendix-b-roses-proposals . U35T

1. Scope of Program
The Heliophysics Theory, Modeling, Simulations (H-TMS) program is a component of
the Heliophysics Research Program. Proposers interested in this program element are
encouraged to see the overview of the Heliophysics Research Program in Appendix B.1
of this ROSES NRA.
The H-TMS program was previously one element of the Heliophysics Grand Challenges
Research (H-GCR) program (H-GCR-TMS, last competed in ROSES-2016 as program
element B.5). Before that it was called "Heliophysics Theory Program" (HTP, last
competed in ROSES-2013). For simplification, this program is now referred to as the
Theory, Modeling, and Simulations (TMS) element in the Heliophysics program.
The former Heliophysics Theory Program provides the foundation of the TMS element.
Increasingly, as computing power becomes more affordable and more available,
numerical simulations and modeling become tools that can and have been used
synergistically with data analyses and rigorous theory development to solve the
fundamental problems of Heliophysics. Artificial intelligence (AI) and its subset, machine
learning (ML), techniques have become potentially effective means for achieving
scientific goals and for collecting and analyzing large data sets. Scientists have begun
to use "theory-aided" or "knowledge-aided" AI to achieve breakthroughs. All of these
tools and techniques can lead the way to new understanding and drive science
concepts for future strategic missions.
TMS investigations may use any of these methodologies, separately or together, to
address a specific science problem. Theory investigations alone are encouraged.
Investigations using the concepts of AI are encouraged. More traditional modeling and
simulation are also acceptable for this TMS solicitation. All investigations must compare
against observations for ground truth. The ultimate goal of TMS investigations is to
provide a complete chain of reasoning extending from the basic laws of nature to
comparison with observation to the identification of future quantitative tests of the
behavior of the environment. NASA acknowledges this and renames the element
"Theory, Modeling, and Simulations".
TMS investigations must address one of the four high level science goals from the
Heliophysics Decadal survey (Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological
Society www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13060 ) that are:
35T 35T

1. Determine the origins of the Sun's activity and predict the variations in the space
environment;
2. Determine the dynamics and coupling of Earth’s magnetosphere, ionosphere,
and atmosphere and their response to solar and terrestrial inputs;

B.3-1
 3. Determine the interaction of the Sun with the solar system and the interstellar
medium;
4. Discover and characterize fundamental processes that occur both within the
heliosphere and throughout the universe.
2. Submission and Evaluation Guidelines
2.1 General Considerations
Each Principal Investigator (PI) is allowed to submit one and only one Step-1 proposal
to this program element. In that proposal, the Principal Investigator is expected to invest
a substantial portion of his/her time, at least 30%, to the investigation. Co-Investigators
(Co-Is) must each have a specific and defined task in the project, and the task must be
essential to the completion of the project. Use of Collaborators whose only role is
advisory is discouraged. Proposals may be declared noncompliant based on either the
Step-1 or Step-2 proposal if they are outside the scope of the TMS program (see
Section 2.2 below) or if they fail to meet submission guidelines specified below (Section
3).
2.2 Limitations and Scope
Proposals outside the scope of Heliophysics TMS include the following:
• Proposals for the same or essentially the same work submitted concurrently to
other program elements in Appendix B or F, as specified in B.1 Section 1;
• Work for which the proposing organization (or investigators) are already funded
by NASA. Where projects might appear to overlap, proposals must show that the
proposed effort does not duplicate other awards;
• Efforts of sufficient scope and breadth and focused on those aspects of
Heliophysics that directly affect life and society, which are appropriate for the
LWS Science program (B.5)
Proposals that serve only as an umbrella for a variety of separate research tasks, even
though they each may be related by a common theme and may each be of high
scientific merit, are not appropriate for the TMS element.
3. Two-Step Submission Guidelines
To streamline the proposal process (submission, evaluation, and administration), this
program uses a two-step proposal submission process. The overall description of a two-
step process can be found in Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
3.1 Step-1 proposals
A Step-1 proposal is required and must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 due
date (see Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES) by an organization Authorized Organizational
Representative (AOR). No budget or other elements are required. Step-1 proposals will
be checked for compliance, but they will not be evaluated. Only proposers who submit a
Step-1 proposal and who are "invited" can submit a full (Step-2) proposal.
The Step-2 proposal title and science goals must be the same as those in the Step-1
proposal. No additional investigators (Principal Investigator, Co-Investigators,
Collaborators, Consultants, and Other Professionals) are allowed in the Step-2

B.3-2
proposal. The expected format and evaluation criteria are described below. Submission
of the Step-1 proposal does not obligate the offerors to submit a Step-2 proposal later.
3.1.1 Step-1 Proposal Content and Format
Proposers should refer to the "Instructions for Submitting a Step-1 Proposal" under
"Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element. The Step-1
proposal is restricted to the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on the
41T

NSPIRES web interface cover pages . 41T

The Step-1 proposals must include the following information:

• A description of the science goals and objectives to be addressed by the proposal;
• A brief description of the methodology to be used to address the science goals and
objectives.
• The relevance to one or more of the four Decadal Survey goals.
No PDF attachment is required or permitted for Step-1 proposal submission. All
41T

information will be entered within the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on the
NSPIRES web interface cover pages. Proposers will be notified by NSPIRES whether
41T 41T

they are invited to submit their Step-2 proposals.

3.1.2 Step-1 Compliance
Step-1 proposals may be declared noncompliant if outside the scope of the TMS
program as described in Section 1. PIs of noncompliant proposals will not be invited
through NSPIRES to submit the associated Step-2 proposal and will receive a letter to
this effect.
3.1.3 Suggested Reviewers
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of five
experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is. This information can be supplied in response to the cover
page questions associated with the Step-1 proposal.
3.2 Step-2 Proposals
Owing to the larger scope of the TMS proposals, the page limit for the
Science/Technical/ Management section is revised from the default standard of 15
pages to 20 pages. A Step-2 (full) proposal must be submitted electronically by the
Step-2 due date (see Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES). The Step-2 proposal must be
submitted via NSPIRES by the organization Authorized Organizational Representative
(AOR). A budget and other specified information is required. The Step-2 proposal title
and science goals must be the same as those in the Step-1 proposal. No additional
investigators (Principal Investigator, Co-Investigators, Collaborators, Consultants, and
Other Professionals) are allowed in the Step-2 proposal. Proposers must have
submitted a Step-1 proposal and have been invited to submit a Step-2 proposal.
Proposers that received a noncompliant letter are not eligible to submit a Step-2
proposal.

B.3-3
The process for preparation and submission of the Step-2 (full) proposals is the same
for any other ROSES proposal. Instructions for the formatting and content of ROSES
proposals are given in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and, for topics not
addressed there, refer to the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Proposers must follow
these instructions, except where they are overridden by the instructions given in the
Heliophysics Research Program Overview or in this program element (e.g., the 20-page
length for the Science-Technical-Management section of Step-2 proposal).
3.3 Step-2 Proposal Content
Proposals must include the following sections with the preferred order:
• The science objectives and perceived impact of the proposed work to the state of
knowledge in the field; references to existing work in the field should be limited to
that which is needed to justify the value of the science proposed;
• The methodology to be employed in conducting the proposed research; the proposal
must demonstrate that the methodology is both appropriate and feasible to make
substantial progress on the science objectives; TMS studies must be substantiated
using appropriate data, primarily from NASA missions.
• The relevance of the proposed work to one or more of the four high-level science
goals from the most recent Heliophysics Decadal survey listed in Section 1.1 must
be demonstrated;
• A general plan of work, the management structure for the proposal personnel, and a
description of the expected contribution to the proposed effort by the PI and each
person as identified in the proposal whether or not they derive support from the
proposed budget. PhD researchers and students do not need to be named.
Historically, proposals that are focused on a specific compelling science question have
been more successful at constructing methodologies that clearly address a single target
question than those that propose to address a large number of science questions or that
are directed at a broad science topic, rather than a specific question.
3.4 Step-2 Compliance and Evaluation Criteria
Non-compliant, Step-2 proposals will be returned without review. Step-2 proposals may
be declared noncompliant if:
• The title has changed from that of their Step-1 proposal,
• Investigators have been added since the Step-1 proposal,
• The science scope/goals have changed from that of their Step-1 proposal.
Step-2 proposals that are not compliant with formatting requirements (e.g., margins, font
sizes, line spacing) may be rejected without review. See Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers for details.
Compliant proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria specified Section V (a) of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. These
criteria are intrinsic (scientific and technical) merit, relevance, and cost reasonableness.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include the following:
• Compelling nature and scientific priority of the proposed investigation's science
goals and objectives, including the importance of the problem within the broad field

B.3-4
 of Heliophysics; the unique value of the investigation to make scientific progress in
the context of current understanding in the field, and the importance of carrying out
the investigation now.
• Appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology, including the appropriateness of
the selected data, models, and analysis for completing the investigation and the
feasibility of the methodology for ensuring scientific success.
Based on these two factors, the evaluation will consider the overall potential science
impact and probable success of the investigation.
Relevance to and priority within the TMS program will be assessed vs. the topics
discussed in Section 1. Each proposal must demonstrate that the investigation is
relevant and of high priority.
Cost reasonableness will, in part, include the amount of work to be accomplished versus
the amount of time proposed (See Section V (a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
regarding the evaluation of cost).
Open-ended proposals, or those with many science questions to be addressed, typically
do not fare well in this evaluation. Only necessary Co-investigators and Collaborators
should be included, and their specific roles in the investigation must be clearly laid out.
Use of Collaborators whose only role is advisory is discouraged.
4. Budgeting and Timely Utilization of Research Funds
The H-TMS program will pilot a new measure of incentivizing usage of research funds in
a timely manner. For this purpose, proposers are advised to use a realistic budget
profile that matches the expected expenditures, taking into account any expected
delays in ramping up the research effort. After selection, PIs will work with the program
officer of the H-TMS program to determine the official start date.
To incentivize timely usage and costing of research funds, at the end of year 2, the
utilization of funds provided over the first two performance years will be evaluated. The
expectation is that all year-1 and year-2 funds will be expended by the end of the first
quarter of performance year 3. Projects that do not "cost" (spend) research funds in a
timely manner will at least be rephased and may face reductions in year-3 funding.
5. Available Funds
Selections for TMS from this program element are for three-year periods of performance
with annual funding contingent on submission of satisfactory progress reports and
available funding. The total annual budget for this program element is about $4M, and
the expected annual funding per award is approximately $400-450K.
6. Award Types
The TMS program will primarily award funds through three vehicles: (1) grants, (2)
interagency transfers, and (3) awards to NASA Centers. The TMS program will not
award contracts, because it is not appropriate given the nature of the work solicited. An
institution that has received a contract previously can receive funds as a grant by not
charging a fee.

B.3-5
7. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first year
of new awards
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Step-1 proposal
Due date for full (Step-2) proposals
Planning date for start of investigation
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of full
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the submission
of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of Step-1 and
Step-2 proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of Step-1 and
Step-2 proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program.
~$4M
8-10
3 years
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
6 months after full proposal due date.
20 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and Section 3.7 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
35T
Proposals that are relevant to this program
are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Table 1 and Section IV of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and Section 3 of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-
35T 35T
4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
35T 35T
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
35T 35T
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
35T 35T
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
35T 35T
NNH22ZDA001N-TMS
Katya Verner
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1213
Email: ekaterina.m.verner@nasa.gov
35T 35T
B.3-6
B.4 HELIOPHYSICS GUEST INVESTIGATORS - OPEN
NOTICE: May 26, 2022. Two corrections have been made to Section
2.5.1: 1) The first bullet in the list of components of the Step-2
proposal, the re-statement of Proposal Summary from Step 1, does
not count towards the 10 page limit for the S/T/M section. 2) The DAPR
Table erroneously gave the default ROSES page limit for the S/T/M
Section of Step-2 proposals. This has been corrected to 10 pages. The
Step 2 due date is unchanged, it remains August 9, 2022.
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-
anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared according
to the guidelines in Section 2.2 and in the associated "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element. All proposers are to use the
standard Heliophysics template for Current and Pending Support for
the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of time commitment. Use of the DMP
template https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-
division-appendix-b-roses-proposals is encouraged. See The S/T/M
section of Step-2 proposals is limited to ten (10) pages.
1. Scope of Program
The Heliophysics Guest Investigator Open (HGIO) program is intended to maximize the
scientific return from operating missions by providing support for research that is
beyond the scope of work of the mission science teams. All HGIO investigations must
be intensive data analysis efforts; any additional resources (e.g. simulations, secondary
data sets, or machine learning tools) to help analyze Heliophysics System Observatory
(HSO) observations must be justified.
HGIO is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers interested
in this program element are encouraged to see the overview of the Heliophysics
Research Program in Appendix B.1 for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Common
requirements for all ROSES elements and proposals are found in the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation and the Proposer's Guidebook and the order of precedence for proposers
is the following: This document takes precedence, followed by ROSES Element B.1,
followed by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and the Proposer’s Guidebook.
Proposers should be familiar with all of these resources.
1.1 Solicited Investigations
The HGIO program is for investigations with a primary emphasis on the analysis of data
from currently operating missions in the HSO or allowable CubeSat missions (ELFIN or
MinXSS). The list of operating HSO missions is found at:
https://science.nasa.gov/missions-page?field_division_tid=5&field_phase_tid=29.
The HGIO program provides support for analysis of observations from both extended
missions and from missions in their prime phase (Phase E). Proposals must either (1)
address the goals of the mission(s) that generated the data on which the investigation is
focused, or (2) use the mission data to address the Heliophysics overarching goal or a
specific objective as described in B.1. Proposers must demonstrate that data analytic

B.4-1
tasks constitute at least two thirds of the effort in the proposed research plan. Proposers
should be aware that for many of these missions, the mission science teams and others
have already accomplished a substantial amount of research. Proposals must
demonstrate that the proposed research will extend the frontier of existing knowledge in
a fundamental and important manner.
In support of any HGIO proposal, investigations may employ theory, models, and data
from other sources, as needed, to interpret and analyze data from NASA’s HSO, but
only as a secondary emphasis. In such cases, the proposal must clearly demonstrate
that the theory, models, and/or data in question are necessary support for interpreting
the HSO data and are not, themselves, the primary objective of the investigation.
Proposed work efforts not related to analysis of data should be limited to no more than
one third of the proposed research effort. Development of new models and theories is
not solicited in this call.
1.2 Data Usage and Availability
HGIO investigations must demonstrate that the proposed effort can be accomplished
using data that was publicly available 30 days before the Step-2 submission deadline.
All spacecraft mission data must be available in the Solar Data Analysis Center (SDAC)
or the Space Physics Data Facility (SPDF), or an equivalent, publicly accessible archive
(with a link to the archive included in the proposal), which is free of charge to the user.
HGIO investigations focused on the All Sky Imagers (ASI) and Ground Magnetometers
(GMAG) associated with the THEMIS mission are permitted as they are considered to
be part of the HSO. Check NASA spacecraft mission data compliance as specified in
the overview B.1.
HGIO investigations utilizing CubeSat missions ELFIN and MinXSS must utilize
respective data archives (https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/minxss/data/ and https://elfin-
data.epss.ucla.edu/data/).
1.3 Limitations in Scope
Proposals outside the scope of HGIO include the following:
• Proposals that do not focus on analysis of data from currently-operating HSO
missions or allowable CubeSat missions;
• Proposals for the same or essentially the same work submitted concurrently to
other program elements in Appendix B or F, as specified in B.1 Section 1;
• Work for which the proposing organization (or investigators) are already funded
by NASA. Where projects might appear to overlap, proposals must show (in the
E&R document, see below) that the proposed effort does not duplicate other
awards, including awards as part of operating space flight missions;
• Proposals for model, tool, or theory development (see Section 1.1);
• The routine, long-term gathering of observational data;
• Investigations with the main purpose of supporting ground-based infrastructure or
facilities.
A PI or a Co-I on a qualifying Heliophysics mission may also propose as a PI or Co-I to
the HGIO program. However, proposed tasks must not be duplicative of mission duties.

B.4-2
Existing responsibilities for mission operations and data analysis must be described and
distinguished from proposed tasks in the "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document, which is part of the preparation of proposals for dual-anonymous peer review
(DAPR). DAPR is described in Section 2.2, below, and Section 1.8 of B.1.
2. Submission and Evaluation Guidelines
The HGIO program will be executed in a "dual-anonymous" fashion, where not only are
proposers unaware of the identity of the members on the review panel, but the
reviewers are not given information about the proposing teams or organizations (see
Section 2.2).
To broaden access to the results of NASA-funded research, proposals submitted to
HGIO must include a data management plan (DMP). If the proposed work would not
produce data suitable for deposition in a public archive, then that must be explicitly
justified in the proposal. DMPs must be placed in a special section of the proposal, not
to exceed two pages in length, entitled "Data Management Plan" immediately following
the references and citations for the S/T/M section of the proposal. The DMP must cover
any data needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-reviewed publications,
particularly data underlying figures, maps, and tables. It also needs to cover any other
data and software that would enable future research or the replication/reproduction of
published results. Proposers are strongly encouraged to use the HPD DMP template,
that may be downloaded as a Word document, from the SARA web page at:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-
proposals. Additional information can be found in Section 1.5 of B.1 the Heliophysics
Division Research Overview. Since proposals to this program element will be evaluated
using dual-anonymous peer review, the DMP in the main proposal PDF must be
anonymized. Proposers may also refer to the ROSES DMP FAQ at:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/dmp-faq-roses/
2.1 General Considerations
Each Principal Investigator (PI) is allowed to submit one and only one Step-1 proposal
to this program element. In that proposal, the Principal Investigator or Science PI must
invest at least 2 months of their time per year to the investigation in order to adequately
ensure the conduct of the investigation. The PI(s), Co-Investigators (Co-Is), and any
paid team members must each have a specific and defined task essential to the
completion of the project. Unfunded team members who are performing tasks that are
essential to completion of the project are unfunded Co-Is, not collaborators. Unfunded
Co-Is must show support for their effort in the E&R document, see below, e.g., by the
inclusion of a letter of support in the E&R appendix as is required for foreign Co-Is, see
Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposals may be declared
noncompliant based on either the Step-1 or Step-2 proposal if they are outside the
scope of the HGIO program (see Section 1 above), or if they fail to meet submission
guidelines specified below in Sections 2.3-2.5, or if they have egregiously violated the
dual-anonymous guidelines for writing proposals (Section 2.2).

B.4-3
2.2 Special Instructions for Proposals under Dual Anonymous Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members
on the review panel, but the reviewers are not explicitly provided the identity of the
proposing teams or organizations until after the evaluation of the merit, relevance and
cost reasonableness of the proposal. The overarching objective of dual-anonymous
peer review is to mitigate unconscious bias in the evaluation of the proposal.
Proposers should consult the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under
"Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element for detailed
instructions on writing proposals appropriate for dual-anonymous peer review. Neither
Step-1 nor Step-2 proposals may include anything that identifies the names of
investigators or their institutions. When submitting Step-2 proposals, all proposers must
also upload a separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized" (E&R) document,
which is not anonymized. The "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" contains complete
information on how to write this separate document.
The NSPIRES cover pages or "front matter" will not be seen by peer reviewers (i.e., PI
responses to various queries regarding programmatic content such as Budget, Proposal
Team, International participation, and Business Data). This has two impacts: (1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and (2) proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" (E&R) document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
identifying information.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized Step-2 proposals without taking into account the
proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after the evaluation is finalized
for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the E&R documents for the competitive
proposals (i.e., approximately the top third score). The panel will assess the
qualifications of the team and verify that all resources discussed in the proposal body
are indeed available and assess the team capabilities required to execute a given
proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key factors for PIs to keep in mind are:
• Step-1 and Step-2 Proposals may not include language that identifies the names
of investigators or their institutions, as discussed in the Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals
• PIs are required to upload along with their Step-2 proposal an additional
"Expertise and Resource – Not Anonymized" PDF through NSPIRES as a
separate upload when submitting the Step-2 Proposal.
• SMD understands that dual-anonymous peer review represents a major shift in
the evaluation of HGIO proposals and, as such, there may be occasional slips in
writing anonymized proposals. However, SMD reserves the right to return without
review proposals that are particularly egregious in terms of the identification of
the proposing team.

B.4-4
2.3 Two-Step Submission Process
To provide adequate notice to potential reviewers, this program uses a two-step
proposal submission process. The overall description of a two-step process can be
found in Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
In the two-step process a Step-1 proposal is required. Potential reviewers are solicited
based on the Step-1 proposal. Funded investigators (and all Co-Is) may not be changed
between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, unless prior approval is obtained from the
Program Officer of the element. The title and broad science goals of the proposal may
not be changed such that they would significantly affect the scientific or technical
expertise required to properly evaluate a proposal. Significant changes in a proposal
that may impact the review will result in a proposal being declared non-compliant.
2.4 Step-1 Proposals
A Step-1 proposal is required and must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 due
date (see Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES). The Step-1 proposal must be submitted by the
organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). No budget or other
elements are required. Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to
submit a full proposal.
Step-1 proposals will be checked for compliance, but they will not be evaluated. The
expected format is described below. Submission of the Step-1 proposal does not
obligate the offerors to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal later.
2.4.1 Step-1 Proposal Content
The Step-1 proposal is restricted to the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on
the NSPIRES web interface cover pages. References and any other supporting material
are not required, but, if included, must fit within the limit. Step-1 proposals must be
anonymized using the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document in the "Other
Documents" section of the NSPIRES page.
The Step-1 proposal must include the following information:
• The science goals and objectives to be addressed by the proposal;
• A listing of the mission data to be used in the investigation;
• A listing of the data analysis methodology and any models or simulations to be
used;
• A brief statement of the relevance of the problem to the goals of the mission(s)
on whose data the investigation is focused, or the Heliophysics overarching goal
or specific objectives as described in B.1 addressed using mission data.
No PDF attachment is permitted for Step-1 proposal submission. Proposers will be
notified by email when they are able to submit their Step-2 proposals.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of five
experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is. This information can be supplied in response to NSPIRES
cover page questions at the time of submission of the Step-1 proposal.

B.4-5
2.5 Step-2 Proposals
A Step-2 (full) proposal (with a Scientific/Technical/Management section of no more
than 10 pages) must be submitted electronically by the Step-2 due date (see Tables 2
and 3 of ROSES). The Step-2 proposal must be submitted by the organization’s
Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). A budget and other specified
information is required.
Because potential reviewers are solicited based on the Step-1 proposal, the team
members may not be changed between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, unless prior
approval is obtained from the Program Officer of the element. The title and broad
science goals of the proposal may not be changed such that they would significantly
affect the scientific or technical expertise required to properly evaluate a proposal.
Significant changes in a Step-2 proposal that may impact the review will result in a
proposal being declared non-compliant.
Proposers must have submitted a Step-1 proposal to be eligible to submit a Step-2
proposal. Proposers that received a noncompliant letter are not eligible to submit a
Step-2 proposal.
2.5.1 Step-2 Proposal Format [Corrected May 26, 2022]
Step-2 proposals must be anonymized using the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document in the "Other Documents" section of the NSPIRES page. Guidelines for
formatting full proposals are specified in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Specific requirements below supersede those
sources.
The Scientific/Technical/Management section is restricted to ten (10) pages and must
include the following sections with the preferred order:
• Page 1 must include the anonymized proposal summary from the Step-1
proposal, but does not count towards the 10 page limit of S/T/M. Additional
specifying details or clarifications that do not change the scope of the proposed
work are allowable.
• The science questions or objectives and the perceived impact of the proposed
work to the state of knowledge in the field; references to existing work in the field
should be limited to that which is needed to justify the value of the science
proposed;
• The data and methodology to be employed in conducting the proposed research;
the proposal must demonstrate (1) that the data are appropriate and feasible to
address the science objectives and (2) that the methodology is both appropriate
and feasible to make substantial progress on the science objectives;
• The relevance of the proposed work to the goals of the mission(s) on whose data
the investigation is focused; and/or to the Heliophysics overarching goal or
specific objectives as described in B.1 addressed using mission data.
• The general plan of work should include an anonymized list of roles or titles
addressing specific tasks with enough details to evaluate cost reasonableness,
e.g., Co-I #2 will commit two months of time as the data analyst in Year 2.

B.4-6
 • Anonymized work effort table that quantifies proposed FTE for each team member
in each year and correlates to the general work plan.
Anonymized versions of a redacted budget and a budget narrative must be included
with the Step-2 submission, but is not counted towards the ten (10) page limit of the
S/T/M section.
• The proposer must not include in the budget narrative any technical or scientific
material required in the page-limited section of the body of the proposal.
• Any additional information not specifically required in the budget narrative will not
be considered by the evaluation panel and may result in a reduced rating during
the evaluation process, or in some cases, could lead to rejection of the proposal
without review.
• Proposers are responsible for ensuring that all redactions are not easily
removable (e.g., no digital patches that can be deleted from a PDF document).
A separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized" document must contain the
following information:
• The management structure for the proposal personnel, and a description of the
expected contribution to the proposed effort by the PI and each person as
identified in the proposal whether or not they derive support from the proposed
budget, presented in a work effort table, expressed numerically as Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs). Post-doctoral fellows and students need not be identified by
name.
• Required material that outlines both the background and availability of the
proposing team members which includes a Curriculum Vitae as well as a listing
of Current and Pending support of all funded proposal team members.
• Facilities and Equipment. Note, as stated in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation,
"For any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must state which
team member has access or provide a letter of resource support from the facility
or resource confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the
proposed period."
• Other supporting documentation that identify proposers including allowable
letters (see Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation).
• Any HEC request form should be provided as a separate appendix document
Historically, proposals that address a single well-focused science objective with a
limited set of specific science questions have been more successful at constructing
methodologies that are demonstrably feasible and appropriate, as compared with those
that propose to address a large number of science questions or that are directed at an
overly-broad science topic.
A summary of the main requirements for anonymized Step-2 proposals, reproduced
from the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below.
Item Requirement [Corrected May 26, 2022]
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.

B.4-7
Page limits 15 10 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.

B.4-8
 2.5.2 Step-2 Evaluation Criteria
Compliant proposals will be evaluated vs. Intrinsic Merit, Cost Reasonableness and
Relevance, as defined Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
consistent with Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Clarifications and
additions specific to this program element are listed below.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include the following:
• Compelling nature and scientific priority of the proposed investigation's science
goals and objectives, including the importance of the problem within the broad
field of Heliophysics, the unique value of the investigation to make scientific
progress in the context of current understanding in the field, and the importance
of carrying out the investigation now.
• Appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology, including the
appropriateness of the selected data, models, and analysis for completing the
investigation and the feasibility of implementing the methodology for ensuring
scientific success.
Based on these two science and technical factors, the evaluation will consider the
overall potential science impact and probability of success of the investigation.
Relevance to and priority within this H-GIO program element will be assessed based on
criteria discussed in Section 1. Each proposal must demonstrate that at least two thirds
of the effort is dedicated towards analysis of data (HSO data primarily) and
supplemental tasks are limited to no more than one third of the proposed research plan.
Cost reasonableness includes assessing the amount of work to be accomplished versus
the amount of time proposed. Open-ended proposals or those with a large number of
science questions to be addressed typically do not fare well in this evaluation. Only
necessary Co-Investigators (Co-Is) should be included, and specific tasks and roles in
the investigation for Co-Is and Collaborators must be clearly defined in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document, in addition to the anonymized
format in the body of the proposal (e.g. Co-I #1 will do X, Co-I #2 will do Y, etc).
3. Available Funds
It is expected that there will be approximately $5.0M available per each Fiscal Year (FY)
to support new Heliophysics GI investigations selected through this program element. It
is anticipated that the combined 3-year total budget of most proposals will be
approximately $525K.
4. Award Types
It is anticipated that awards to non-governmental organizations will be grants or
cooperative agreements, as appropriate, rather than contracts which would not be
appropriate given the nature of the work solicited. See the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation Section II(a) Funding and Award Policies for more information.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget for See Section 3
new awards.

B.4-9
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Step-1 proposals
Due date for full Step-2 proposals
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposals
Planning date for start of investigation
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of Step-1 and
Step-2 proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of Step-1 and
Step-2 proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
~30
3 years; shorter-term proposals are allowed
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
10 pages; see Section 2.5.1
8 months after proposal due date
This program is relevant to Heliophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Table 1 and Section IV of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and Section 3 of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is permitted
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-HGIO
Galen Fowler
Heliophysics Division
Science mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-358-0039
Email: galen.fowler@nasa.gov
B.4-10
B.5 HELIOPHYSICS LIVING WITH A STAR SCIENCE
NOTICE: Amended November 10, 2022. This amendment delays the
Step-2 proposal due date for this program element due to Hurricane
Nicole. Invited Step-2 proposals are now due November 23, 2022
Amended October 17, 2022. This amendment delays the Step-2
proposal due date for this program element due to the impact of
Hurricane Ian. Invited Step-2 proposals are now due November 17,
2022.
Corrected, July 22, 2022. The word "exclude" was removed from the
first paragraph of Section 1.3. The word is retained as strikethrough
so the change may be seen more readily.
Amended June 22, 2022. This amendment releases the final text for
this program element, which had been listed as "TBD". Step-1
proposals are due September 8, 2022, and Step-2 proposals are due
November 10, 2022.
All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template for
Current and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of
time commitment. Use of the DMP template is encouraged. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
appendix-b-roses-proposals for more details.
1. Scope of Program
The Living With a Star (LWS) Program emphasizes the science necessary to
understand those aspects of the Sun and Earth's space environment that affect life and
society. The ultimate goal of the LWS Program is to provide a scientific understanding
of the system that leads to predictive capability of the space environment conditions at
Earth, other planetary systems, and in the interplanetary medium. Every year the LWS
Program solicits Focused Science Topics (FSTs) that address some part of this goal.
This year’s FSTs are described in Sections 1.1 and 2 - 3 below.
This goal poses two great challenges for the LWS program. First, the program seeks to
address large-scale problems that cross discipline and technique boundaries (e.g., data
analysis, theory, modeling, etc.); and second, the program will identify how this new
understanding has a direct impact on life and society. Over time, the FSTs have
provided advances in scientific understanding that address these challenges.
LWS is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers interested in
this program element should read B.1 The Heliophysics Research Program Overview,
for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Defaults for all ROSES elements are found in
the ROSES 2022 Summary of Solicitation and for all NASA solicitations in the
Guidebook for Proposers. The order of precedence is the following: This document
(B.5) followed by B.1, followed by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and last the
Proposer’s Guidebook. Proposers should review all these resources to ensure
compliance with Program requirements.

B.5-1
The LWS program goals are to:
1. Understand how the Sun varies and what drives solar variability.
2. Understand how the Earth and planetary systems respond to dynamic external
and internal drivers.
3. Understand how and in what ways dynamic space environments affect human
and robotic exploration activities.
The LWS Program seeks to make progress in understanding the complex Heliophysics
system, focusing on the fundamental science of the most critical interconnections.
Further information on the LWS Program can be found at the LWS website
(http://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov). The LWS Science program maintains a strategy with three
basic components, namely, Strategic Capabilities, Focused Science Topics, and Cross-
Disciplinary Infrastructure Building programs. Only the FSTs will be competed in this
program element.
Further background material concerning relevant research objectives can be found on
the LWS website, and in the following documents:
• The LWS TR&T SDT Report
https://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/pdf/TRT_SDT_Report.pdf
• The LWS 10-Year Vision Beyond 2015 Report
http://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/pdf/LWS_10YrVision_Oct2015_Final.pdf
• The Revised Strategic Science Areas
https://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/docs/lpag/LPAG_EC_report_2019_12_31.pdf
• The National Research Council Decadal Survey Report Solar and Space
Physics: A Science for a Technological Society
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13060
1.1 Solicited Investigations
To be responsive, proposed investigations must have objectives suitable for one of the
two following FSTs. Detailed descriptions of each FST are given in Sections 2 and 3.
The FSTs solicited for proposals this year are as follows:
1) Beyond F10.7: Quantifying Solar EUV Flux and its Impact on the Ionosphere –
Thermosphere – Mesosphere System (described in Section 2); and
2) Coupling of the Solar Wind Plasma and Energy to the Geospace System
(described in Section 3).
NASA desires a balance of research investigation techniques for each FST, including
theory, modeling, data analysis, and simulations. This program element accepts
proposals that lack a complete scientific study but instead describe a project that would
enable or enhance the FST's activities (e.g., develop a data set or implement a model
for use by the FST Team). Regardless of the project, all proposals must identify science
questions responsive to the FST's goals that are addressed by the proposed work. FST
teams will be formed from individual proposals that each address an aspect of the FST,
and together cover the breadth of the FST (see Section 1.2 below).
A critical element in enhancing understanding and developing predictive capabilities is
the determination of whether the model or data products being developed, and any
associated simulations, are accurate and reliable. Consequently, a methodology for
B.5-2
verification and validation of results, and quantification of uncertainty, is required as a
key component of the proposed research. As mentioned below (Sections 2.4 3.4, and
4.3.5), all proposals must address data and model uncertainty. This is mentioned in
Section 3.13 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, which indicates that all proposals
must address sources of error and uncertainties and what effect they may have on the
robustness of potential results and conclusions.
1.2 Focused Science Teams
The selected investigators will form a Focused Science Team and will coordinate their
research programs after selection of proposals. To foster the collaborations required to
coordinate these team research efforts, one of the Principal Investigators (PIs) will serve
as the Team Leader for the FST for which they proposed. The Team Leader will
organize team meetings and will be responsible for producing a yearly report to NASA
Headquarters describing team activities and progress in addition to the required annual
progress report for their specific award.
Proposers wishing to serve as a Team Leader must state so in their proposal and must
include a separate section describing their qualifications, interest, and approaches to
team leadership (see Section 4.3.3). Recommendations for selection of Team Leaders
will be made by the LWS Program Officer and final selections will be made by the
Heliophysics selecting official. Guidance for the team development process will be
provided by NASA after selection of the Team Leader.
Past experience has shown that Focused Science Teams usually need a year to get
organized since team members may not have worked together before, followed by
another three years to make significant progress on the FST. Thus, the expected
duration of FST awards is four (4) years. While proposals with shorter duration are
allowed, proposers are encouraged to propose up to four (4) years to ensure maximum
overlap between individual contributions to the team efforts.
All proposers must include sufficient travel funds in their budgets to cover two team
meetings per year. To leverage travel costs, one meeting per year may be held in
conjunction with a major U.S. scientific meeting. Successful teams will participate in a
Kickoff Workshop where the selected team members will meet and develop work plans
for the anticipated 4-year period of performance, based on the requirements of the FST
and the composition of the selected team.
1.3 Data Use in the LWS Program [Corrected July 22, 2022]
This program element has policies on the use of data in proposals that expand upon
and supersede those given in B.1, the Heliophysics Research Program Overview. Data
and data products necessary for successful completion of the proposed project must be
in a publicly available archive at no cost at least thirty (30) days prior to the Step-2
deadline. This applies to both space-based and ground-based observations, as well as
any data products derived from them. This 30-day requirement does not exclude apply
to data products to be developed as part of a proposed study, only those existing in
advance of Step-2 submission. Any questions about whether a data set or data product
qualifies as publicly available must be submitted to the Program Officer of the element
at least ten (10) days before the Step-1 deadline.

B.5-3
After an award is made, projects may incorporate new data that becomes available at
no cost in a public archive, provided that their use does not alter the goals and
objectives of the selected proposal. Any planned changes in the data used must be
described in the annual progress report submitted by the PI and approved by the LWS
Program Officer.
While the inclusion of useful ground-based observations is allowed, proposals are
expected to incorporate relevant space-based observations within the proposed
investigation through, e.g., data analysis, model initialization, model validation, or other
means. Regardless of the type of data that would be utilized in the proposed study (i.e.,
space-based, ground-based, or some combination thereof), the proposal must clearly
demonstrate why the proposed data set or data sets are appropriate for addressing the
proposed goals and objectives.
2. FST #1: Beyond F10.7: Quantifying Solar EUV Flux and its Impact on the
Ionosphere – Thermosphere – Mesosphere System
2.1 Target Description
Solar extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) flux is a dominant heating and ionization source for the
ionosphere – thermosphere – mesosphere (ITM) system. Solar activity fluctuates on
several temporal scales – from minutes (flares) to days (27-day rotation) to decades
(11-year cycle) – and initiates huge variations in the neutral density and temperature,
ion and electron densities and temperatures, neutral winds, and electric fields in the
ionosphere. Studies of the ITM often rely on the F10.7 index (solar radio flux at the
wavelength of 10.7 cm) as a primary solar driver. This index does not directly describe
the solar input in the EUV wavelength range below 102.5 nm that is directly responsible
for much of the ionization of the thermosphere.
Recognizing that both periodic variations of EUV flux and transient events like solar
flares are both important energy inputs to the ITM system, proposed investigations may
examine a wide range of temporal scales. With EUV data from numerous satellite
observations (e.g., SOHO/SEM, TIMED/SEE, SDO/EVE, GOES/EXIS, Hinode/EIS,
IRIS, and others), new indices (e.g., S10.7, Y10.7, Mg II, Lyman-Alpha) and new
proxies from solar irradiance models (SIP E10.7, FISM2 EUV) have become available
within the last two decades. These indices and proxy measures can better characterize
solar energy input to the thermosphere than the traditionally used F10.7 index.
The impact of using improved EUV indices has been studied in the thermosphere, and
their usage substantially improves thermospheric density models. However, the impact
of these indices on a wide range of ITM parameters (e.g., peak density of the F2 layer,
total electron content (TEC), electron density in the D-region and topside ionosphere,
nitric oxide concentration) is much less known/understood. Predictive capability requires
detailed knowledge of the physical processes by which solar forcing impacts all key
aspects of the ITM system.
2.2 FST #1 Science Goals and Objectives
The overarching goal of FST #1 is to develop the ability to reliably specify and predict
the effects of solar variability on the ITM system. Specific objectives include: 1)
identifying new and/or improved EUV indices for driving model predictions of ITM

B.5-4
structure; 2) improved understanding of how particular portions of the EUV spectrum
influence specific aspects of ITM structure (e.g., ionospheric profile shape,
thermospheric composition, density, or temperature); and 3) exploring new EUV
observations characterizing the interactions between the ionosphere and thermosphere.
Studies that validate predictions of ITM properties in response to rapid variations in EUV
(e.g., from solar flares) will be necessary to evaluate the success of alternatives to
F10.7.
2.3 FST #1 Types of Investigations
FST #1 encourages the innovative use of data, theory, models and simulation, as well
as the development of tools and analysis techniques, in combinations necessary to
address the science goals. Proposals to this FST may leverage advances brought by
observations from one or more NASA satellite missions focusing on solar radiation
inputs to the ITM (e.g., TIMED/SEE, SDO/EVE, GOES/EXIS, Hinode/EIS, IRIS, and
others) in combination with observations of the ITM from both space-based (e.g.,
TIMED/SABER, GOLD, ICON, COSMIC, and others) and ground-based instruments
(e.g., GNSS receivers, incoherent scatter radars, ionosondes) to enable studies of solar
flux influences on the ITM system. Proposals focusing on model validation, both in EUV
flux specification and in ITM modeling of EUV-driven phenomena, are also encouraged.
Types of investigations addressing FST #1 objectives listed in Section 2.2 may include,
but are not limited to:
• Understanding connections between observed EUV spectral irradiance variations
and observed ITM responses;
• Development and testing of new solar spectral models for specification and
prediction of ionospheric and thermospheric parameters;
• Development of new machine learning techniques that can improve the
information content of EUV irradiance observations, indices, and proxies for
historical (i.e., retrospective analysis) or forecast applications.
• Improving state-of-the-art thermospheric density prediction models through
innovative use of EUV observations/indices and space-based density data
3. FST #2: Coupling of the Solar Wind Plasma and Energy to the Geospace System
3.1 Target Description
FST #2 seeks to improve our understanding of the flow of solar wind plasma and energy
from the Sun into the geospace environment. The driving of the magnetosphere –
ionosphere – thermosphere geospace system by the solar wind is fundamental to any
understanding of magnetospheric physics and space weather. Currently there are
significant gaps in understanding of the physical processes coupling these different
regions of the geospace system, which collectively impede development of predictive
capabilities. While it is well established that the dayside reconnection rate largely
controls the degree of coupling between the solar wind and the geospace system,
whether the reconnection rate is controlled by local plasma physics or by broader global
processes remains an open question. Additionally, there is a need to quantify the
possible role that plasma of magnetospheric and ionospheric origin plays in reducing
the rate of dayside reconnection. The variability and turbulence within the solar wind
and magnetosheath may also impact the efficiency of reconnection; however, the
B.5-5
physics of these processes is not well understood, and their relative roles have not been
adequately quantified. The types of solar wind variability that may lead to higher levels
of magnetospheric coupling and increased geoeffectiveness are important to
understand. Additionally, the spatial extent of the reconnecting region at the dayside
magnetopause greatly impacts the transfer of energy into the magnetosphere, yet it
remains poorly known.
The coupling of energy and plasma into the magnetosphere may also take place
through other physical processes outside of reconnection. These may include viscous
interactions or boundary effects such as Kelvin-Helmholtz waves, or other processes.
How these physical mechanisms may control the rate of plasma entry into the
magnetosphere is not well understood.
There are also several unresolved questions associated with post-reconnection
coupling. These include understanding how polar cap saturation may work and
understanding how important solar wind coupling is to the polar cap ionosphere. Such
coupling pathways may include large-scale reconfiguration of the magnetosphere’s
shape and dynamics.
3.2 FST #2 Science Goals and Objectives
The overarching goal of FST #2 is to investigate processes by which the solar wind
drives the magnetosphere – ionosphere – thermosphere system. Specific objectives of
this FST include: 1) identifying the parameters controlling the transfer of energy through
dayside magnetopause reconnection; 2) establishing the role of ionospheric and
magnetospheric plasmas in solar wind – magnetosphere coupling; 3) investigating the
physical processes controlling non-reconnection coupling; 4) understanding the role of
solar wind fluctuations in the coupling of the solar wind to the Earth; and 5)
understanding the post-reconnection reconfiguration of the magnetosphere and
ionosphere system in response to extreme solar wind–magnetosphere coupling.
3.3 FST #2 Types of Investigations
Proposals to FST #2 may include, but are not limited to, coupled efforts of theory,
numerical and other advanced modeling and simulation techniques, data assimilation,
innovative data analysis, and data – model comparisons to understand global properties
of magnetopause reconnection and energy transfer from the solar wind into the
magnetosphere. Multifaceted approaches may include constraining a model with
observations or employing kinetic or hybrid models or components. Machine learning
and system science tools may also be appropriate. Diverse measurements of the solar
wind, the magnetosheath, the magnetosphere, ionospheric convection, and
geomagnetic activity may need to be combined to study the transfer of energy and
plasma through the magnetopause. Appropriate datasets may include MMS, THEMIS,
Cluster, ACE, WIND, Van Allen Probes, and GEOTAIL, among others. Experimental
datasets may also be combined to quantify the transport of plasma from the ionosphere
to the magnetopause in response to solar wind driving.

B.5-6
4. Submission and Evaluation Guidelines
Each PI, or the Science PI if applicable, is allowed to submit one and only one proposal
to this program element. The expectation is that the PI (or Science PI) will invest at least
20% of their time per year to the investigation.
In addition to the general requirements and restrictions (e.g., in Table 1 of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation and in B.1 Heliophysics Research Program Overview) this
program element has specific compliance constraints for both format (e.g., Sections
4.2.1 and 4.3.1) and content, e.g., involving data (see Sections 1.3 and 4.3.4) and use
of the standard Heliophysics template for Current and Pending Support for the PI and all
Co-Is, regardless of time commitment. These compliance rules ensure fairness and are
enforced strictly by the Heliophysics Division. Proposals that are deemed noncompliant
may be returned without review or declined following review if violations are found
during the evaluation process.
4.1 Two-Step Submission Process
To provide adequate notice to potential reviewers, this program uses a “binding” two-
step proposal submission process described in Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation.
In the two-step process a Step-1 proposal is required. Because potential reviewers are
solicited based on the Step-1 proposal, investigators may not be added to the proposal
team between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, unless prior approval is obtained from
the Program Officer of the element. The title and broad science goals of the proposal
cannot be changed such that they would significantly affect the scientific or technical
expertise required to properly evaluate a proposal.
4.2 Step-1 Proposals
A Step-1 proposal is required and must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 due
date given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022. The Step-1 proposal must be submitted
by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) from the PI institution. No
budget or other uploaded files are required. Step-1 proposals will be checked for
compliance, but they will not be evaluated. Only proposers who submit a Step-1
proposal and who are invited are eligible to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal.
Submission of a Step-1 proposal does not obligate the offerors to submit a Step-2 (full)
proposal.
4.2.1 Step-1 Proposal Format
The Step-1 proposal is restricted to a 4,000-character Proposal Summary text box on
the NSPIRES web interface cover pages. It must include the following information:
• A description of the science goals and objectives to be addressed by the
proposal;
• A brief description of the methodology to be used to address the goals and
objectives;
• A brief description of the relevance of the proposed study to the scientific
objectives of the FST, and the potential contributions of the proposed study to the
Focused Science Team’s effort.
B.5-7
No PDF attachment is required or permitted for Step-1 proposal submission. Proposers
will be notified by NSPIRES whether they are invited to submit their Step-2 proposals.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of up to
five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is. This information can be supplied in response to NSPIRES
cover page questions at the time of submission of the Step-1 proposal.
4.2.2 Step-1 Compliance Criteria
Step-1 proposals may be declared noncompliant if they fail to meet the submission
guidelines or if they are outside the scope of either the LWS Science program or the
specific FST selected by the proposer. PIs of noncompliant proposals will not be invited
through NSPIRES to submit the associated Step-2 proposal and will be notified through
NSPIRES to this effect.
4.3 Step-2 Proposals
A Step-2 (full) proposal must be submitted electronically by the Step-2 due date given in
Tables 2 and 3 of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. The Step-2 proposal must
be submitted by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) from the PI
institution. A budget and other specified information is required.
Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal and who are invited are eligible to submit
a Step-2 (full) proposal. Proposers that have received a noncompliance letter in
response to their Step-1 proposal are not eligible to submit a Step-2 proposal.
4.3.1 Step-2 Proposal Format
All proposals submitted to ROSES must strictly conform to the formatting instructions
specified in Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation except where
superseded by the requirements in this program element. Proposals that violate these
instructions may be returned without review or declined following review if violations are
found during the evaluation process.
Proposals are restricted to fifteen (15) pages for the Science/Technical/Management
section.
Proposals must include a Data Management Plan (DMP), as described in Section 1.5 of
B.1, the Heliophysics Research Program Overview. The Data Management Plan must
be placed in a separate section, not to exceed two (2) pages in length, titled "Data
Management Plan" immediately following the references and citations for the
Science/Technical/Management section. The Data Management Plan does not count
against the 15-page limit for the Science/Technical/Management section. Use of the
DMP template is encouraged. See https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-
heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-proposals.
4.3.2 Required Additional Section in Step-2 Proposal: Proposed Contribution to the
Focused Science Team Effort
Proposals to this program element must also address the proposed contribution to the
Focused Science Team effort in a separate section, not to exceed two (2) pages in
length, titled “Proposed Contribution to the Focused Science Team Effort”, immediately
following the Data Management Plan section of the proposal. Formatting requirements
B.5-8
for this section are the same as for the Science/Technical/Management section. This
section on Proposed Contribution to the Focused Science Team Effort does not count
against the 15-page limit for the Science/Technical/Management section. Proposals that
fail to address the proposed contribution to the Focused Science Team effort may be
declared noncompliant and will typically be returned without review or declined following
review if the lack of this section is discovered during the evaluation process.
This section must summarize the following three topics:
• The relevance of the proposed study to the scientific objectives of the FST
outlined in Sections 2.2 or 3.2;
• The potential contributions of the proposed study to the Focused Science Team's
effort outlined in Sections 2.3 or 3.3; and
• Metrics and milestones for determining the successful progress and outcome of
the proposed research.
This summary must describe the goals of the proposed project and why they are
aligned with the FST goals outlined in Sections 2.2 or 3.2. For proposals that address a
Type of Investigation that is listed in Sections 2.3 or 3.3, this summary must also
describe briefly how the proposed investigation addresses one or several of those
investigations.
For proposals that address a type of investigation that is NOT listed in the FST
description, the summary must briefly describe the proposed Type of Investigation and
how the proposed investigation will meet the FST Goals and Measures of Success.
In addition, all proposers are expected to provide a set of metrics that they will use to
identify progress toward their proposed goals. Proposers must also provide a set of
milestones that should indicate the anticipated timing of the major achievements during
the course of the proposed study.
The review panel will only consider material in this section when the relevance of the
proposal to the Focused Science Team effort is evaluated (see Section 4.3.4).
4.3.3 Optional Additional Section in Step-2 Proposal: Proposed Team Leader
Contribution
Proposers wishing to serve as a Team Leader must describe the proposed team leader
activities in a separate section, not to exceed one (1) page in length, entitled “Proposed
Team Leader Contribution” (see Section 1.2). When included, this section should follow
the section on “Proposed Contribution to the Focused Science Team Effort” described
in Section 4.3.2. This section on Team Leader Contribution does not count against the
15-page limit for the Science/Technical/Management section.
4.3.4 Step-2 Compliance
Noncompliant Step-2 proposals will be returned without review or may be declined after
review if the noncompliance is found during the evaluation process. Step-2 proposals
may be declared noncompliant if:
• The title has substantially changed from that of the Step-1 proposal;
• Investigators have been added since the Step-1 proposal without prior approval
of the Program Officer;
B.5-9
 • The science goals and objectives have substantially changed from that of the
Step-1 proposal;
• The proposal has the same (or essentially the same) team and objectives as a
Step-2 (full) proposal currently submitted to or selected by another Heliophysics
program in the ROSES-22 announcement;
• The proposal violates the restrictions in Section 1.3 regarding use of data; or
• The proposal violates the formatting instructions in Section 4.3.1.
4.3.5 Step-2 Evaluation Criteria
Compliant proposals will be evaluated according to three main criteria: (1) Intrinsic
Merit, (2) Potential Contribution to the Focused Science Team Effort (Relevance), and
(3) Cost Reasonableness. The data management plan, described in Section 1.5 of B.1,
the Heliophysics Research Program Overview, will be evaluated as part of Merit. The
Intrinsic Merit and Cost criteria will be evaluated primarily as specified in the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation and defined in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, but
Relevance is handled differently. Clarifications and additions specific to this program
element are listed below.
The evaluation of intrinsic merit will include the following:
• Scientific Merit: Compelling nature and scientific priority of the proposed
investigation's science goals and objectives, including the importance of the
problem within the broad field of Heliophysics; the unique value of the
investigation to make scientific progress in the context of current understanding
in the field, and the importance of carrying out the investigation now; and
• Technical Merit: Appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology, including the
appropriateness of the selected data, models, and analysis for completing the
investigation and the feasibility of the methodology for ensuring scientific
success.
The treatment of uncertainty will be evaluated as a methodology issue (intrinsic merit)
and the review panel will assign a strength or weakness based on the treatment
presented in the proposal. Proposers are free to choose any appropriate method of
uncertainty analysis or validation of results, but it must be clearly addressed in the body
of the proposal. Proposals that fail to address uncertainty will be assigned a Major
Weakness in the evaluation and may be considered unselectable.
Intrinsic Merit and Relevance will be evaluated separately. Based on the above two
factors (Scientific and Technical Merit), the evaluation will consider the overall potential
science impact and probable success of the investigation and an adjectival grade for
Intrinsic Merit will be assigned.
The evaluation of the potential contribution to the Focused Science Team effort (Section
4.3.2) will serve as the Relevance evaluation and a separate adjectival grade for
Relevance will be assigned.
The final adjectival grade assigned to the overall evaluation will be the lower of the two
adjectival grades for Intrinsic Merit and Relevance.

B.5-10
Evaluation of Cost Reasonableness will include a comparison of the scope of the
proposed study to the proposed resources (personnel-time allocated, necessary
computer resources, etc.). The panel will provide feedback to SMD but will not assign a
grade and this information will be considered by the Heliophysics selecting official
during the selection process.
5. Award Types
The Heliophysics LWS Science program will only award funds through three vehicles:
(1) grants, (2) interagency transfers, and (3) awards to NASA centers. This call will not
award contracts, as it is not appropriate for the nature of the work. See Section IIa of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation for more information on award types.
6. Available Funds
Given the strategic nature of LWS, and the fact that strategically feasible tasks require
sufficient investment, it is anticipated that FST proposals will have annual budgets in the
range of $180K - $250K per year. (This includes fully encumbered Civil Servant labor,
where appropriate.) It is left to individual PIs to decide whether a strategically feasible
award size could be achieved by increased collaborative efforts, greater time
commitment of investigators, or a combination of the two. PIs should be cognizant,
however, that verification of the level of effort versus the actual work proposed will be
part of the review panel process. Given the submission of proposals of adequate
number, merit, and range of investigative techniques, NASA anticipates forming teams
of ~5-7 selections for each of the two FST topics.
Team Leader activities should not be included in the proposal budget. The Team
Leader will receive up to an additional $25,000 per year to support their leader activities,
and the Team Leader’s budget will be revised during final award negotiations.
7. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program ~ $2.5M, see also Section 6, above.
budget for new awards
Number of new awards pending ~ 10-14, see also Section 6, above.
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 4 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of No earlier than 6 months after the Step-2 proposal
investigation due date.
Page limit for the central 15 pages; up to 2 extra pages each for required
Science/Technical/Management separate sections describing the Data
section of proposal Management Plan (4.3.1) and the Proposed
Contribution to the Focused Science Team Effort
(4.3.2), and up to 1 extra page for an optional
separate section for proposers to be a Focused
Science Team Leader (see Section 4.3.3). See
also Table 1 of ROSES-2022 for the default
components of a ROSES proposal.
B.5-11
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this John McCormack
program both of whom share the
following postal address:
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Proposals that are relevant to the FSTs in this
program element are, by definition, relevant to
NASA. See Section 4.3.4 regarding evaluation
criteria.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See Section 3 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers and Section IV and Table 1 of ROSES-
2022.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-LWS
Telephone: (202) 422-2796
Email: john.p.mccormack@nasa.gov
Simon Plunkett
Telephone: (202) 358-2034
Email: simon.p.plunkett@nasa.gov
B.5-12
B.6 LIVING WITH A STAR: STRATEGIC CAPABILITY
NOTICE: This program element will not be competed in ROSES-2022.
NASA anticipates that this program will be solicited no earlier than
ROSES-2023, depending on the availability of funds.
1. Scope of Program
The Living With a Star Strategic Capability (LWSSC) program solicits proposals for the
development of models for the coupled Sun-Solar System and Sun-Earth Systems.
Such models can act as tools for science investigations, as prototypes and test beds for
prediction and specification capabilities, as frameworks for linking disparate data sets at
vantage points throughout the Sun-Solar System, and as strategic planning aids for
enabling exploration of outer space and testing new mission concepts.
LWS Strategic Capability (LWSSC) is a component of the Heliophysics Research
Program and proposers interested in this program element should read B.1, the
Heliophysics Research Program Overview for Heliophysics-specific requirements.
Defaults for all ROSES elements are found in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and
the Proposer's Guidebook and the order of precedence is the following: This document
(B.6) followed by B.1, followed by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and the
Proposer’s Guidebook. Proposers should review all of these resources to ensure
compliance with Program requirements.
1.1 Solicited Investigations
In general, when the LWSSC program is solicited, two Strategic Capabilities topics will
be selected. The two topics selected for ROSES-2021 were:
• A global model of the magnetosphere
• A model of coronal mass ejection (CME) evolution and impact on the inner
heliosphere.
These topics will not be part of the next LWSSC solicitation. Future topics will be
chosen for the maturity of their respective fields and the desire to produce tools for
community use. Strategic Capabilities topics are often derived from information
discussed in the LWS Program Analysis Group (LPAG) Reports (reports are available at
http://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/lpag).
The LWS Targeted Research and Technology (TR&T) Science Definition Team (SDT)
(https://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/pdf/TRT_SDT_Report.pdf) identified the
development of predictive and specification models for the coupled Sun-Earth system
as critical for the TR&T program.
2. Point of Contact
Simon Plunkett
Telephone: (202) 358-2034
Email: simon.p.plunkett@nasa.gov

B.6-1
B.7 SPACE WEATHER SCIENCE APPLICATION RESEARCH-TO-OPERATIONS-TO-RESEARCH
NOTICE: Amended March 8, 2022. This amendment releases the final
text for this program element, which had been listed as "TBD". Step-1
proposals are due April 12, 2022 and Step-2 proposals June 14, 2022.
Proposers must use the standard Heliophysics template for Current
and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of time
commitment. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
appendix-b-roses-proposals.
1. Scope of Program
The primary goal of the Space Weather Science Application Research-to-Operations-to-
Research (SWR2O2R) program is to support research to improve numerical models,
technologies, and data utilization techniques that could advance specification and/or
forecasting capabilities and which could also lead to improved scientific understanding.
SWR2O2R is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers
interested in this program element are encouraged to read B.1, The Heliophysics
Research Program Overview, for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Common
requirements for all ROSES elements and proposals are found in the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation and The Proposer's Guidebook and the order of precedence for
proposers is the following: This document takes precedence followed by B.1, The
Heliophysics Research Program Overview, followed by this year's ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and, finally, the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Proposers should be
familiar with all of these resources.
1.1 Solicited Investigations
The two application-oriented areas of focus for this opportunity are:
• High-Latitude Radiation Exposure and Impacts on Avionics and Air Travel. See
Section 1.2.
• Downstream Updating of Solar Wind and CME Forecasts. See Section 1.3.
The primary goal of this solicitation is to support research to improve application-
oriented models and forecast tools that directly enable advances in the areas of focus
described above and which in doing so could also lead to improved scientific
understanding. Effective utilization of available data and employing advanced
techniques for data assimilation or ensemble modeling are encouraged.
1.2 High-Latitude Radiation Exposure and Impacts on Avionics and Air Travel
For airline passengers and crews, radiation exposure safety at high latitudes and
altitudes is an ongoing concern. The primary sources of radiation include the general
background from galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and impulsive solar energetic particle
(SEP) events. The goal of this solicitation is to further advance the specification, and
particularly the forecast capability, for high-latitude radiation exposure to aircrews and
avionics. For example, proposals could quantify and validate the radiation environment
forecasts for high altitudes using physics-based simulations or data-driven analyses of
lower-altitude observations such as those obtained by the 2015 NASA RaD-X mission.

B.7-1
In addition to modeling, proposals that focus on obtaining quality data sets (e.g., Tissue
Equivalent Proportional Counter, TEPC, data at different latitudes and altitudes during
magnetic storms) are welcome. Furthermore, proposals that advance instrumentation
(e.g., instruments to measure the spectrum of species on the outer layer of an airplane)
are also welcome.
For modeling proposals, include a plan outlining the coupling of driver-side modeling
(e.g., the injection of SEPs and GCRs into the inner magnetosphere and upper
atmosphere) will be combined with machine learning or data assimilation methods to
improve current forecast capabilities. Proposals for this opportunity must define the
products, along with details, such as the forecast lead-time (e.g., 12 to 18 hours),
cadence (e.g., every 2 hours), and what is being estimated (e.g., species and energies
at the aircraft skin or dose calculation). In addition, proposals must define the metrics
and validation methods that will be employed to evaluate the products. Proposers are
encouraged to include participants on their teams who are involved in decisions relating
to the safety of flight crews and avionics from radiation exposure.
1.3 Downstream Updating of Solar Wind and CME Forecasts
Predicting changes in the background solar wind, along with coronal mass ejection
(CME) events, is key to forecasting the variability in the coupled heliospheric,
magnetospheric, ionospheric, and thermospheric system. The goal of this solicitation is
to encourage the utilization of data assimilation methods with real-time observations
(e.g., L1 in situ wind observations) to provide model feedback to inform and update
near-future (“downstream”) solar wind and CME predictions.
For this solicitation, proposals must utilize model and observational differences, along
with model and observational uncertainties, to inform downstream, near-future (e.g., 6
to 72 hours), model predictions. A crucial component to coupled space weather
modeling systems is to account for and incorporate sources of uncertainty. For
example, ensemble modeling is a common approach to represent the uncertainty within
complex and coupled systems. Downstream updating of model predictions might
include dynamically:
• pruning members of model ensembles, where the ensembles might represent
uncertainties in quantities such as boundary input data (e.g., global magnetic
maps) or in model parameters (e.g., coronal model source surface height);
• increasing the model ensemble size to account for growing uncertainty;
• weighting members of an ensemble of model solutions differently based on
recent performance compared with in situ data; or
• scaling downstream solar wind parameters solutions (e.g., temporally or in
amplitude) based on recent performance compared with in situ data.
Proposals must include a full description of the methodology and the technical approach
to enabling enhancement in downstream predictions. In addition, proposals for this
opportunity must define which solar wind parameters will be improved, such as:
background solar wind velocity and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF); IMF Bz; density;
or fully defined CME structure – along with the forecast product details, such as the
cadence of the updates (e.g., every 6 hours) and the duration being predicted (e.g., 72

B.7-2
hours). Proposals must outline the metrics and validation methods that will be employed
to evaluate the model products.
1.4 Background
In March 2019 the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in the Executive
Office of the President released the National Space Weather Strategy and Action Plan
(NSW-SAP). The objectives of the actions described in the NSW-SAP are to improve
the understanding of, forecasting of, and preparedness for space weather events,
recognizing the need for close cooperation among the federal agencies.
The NSW-SAP calls for NASA, National Science Foundation (NSF), and Department of
Defense (DoD) to identify and support basic research on space weather. It also directs
NASA, Department of Commerce (DOC), and DoD to identify and support research
opportunities that address targeted operational space-weather needs. Furthermore, it
directs NASA, NSF, DOC, and DoD to facilitate the transition of space weather
information and prediction capabilities to the Nation's space weather service providers
(research-to-operations and operations-to-research).
In response to the need to advance and coordinate the Nation’s space weather
research and operations capabilities, NASA established the Heliophysics Space
Weather Science Application (SWxSA) activity, of which this research-to-operations-to-
research (R2O2R) call is a part. NASA is supporting this funding opportunity in
coordination with DOC/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to
promote R2O2R activities. The objective of R2O2R efforts is broadly defined as the joint
pursuit of improvements of operational capabilities and advancements in related
fundamental research.
In October 2020, the Promoting Research and Observations of Space Weather to
Improve the Forecasting of Tomorrow (PROSWIFT) act was enacted into law. The
PROSWIFT act codified governmental roles, responsibilities, and priorities with regards
to space weather and formally identified R2O2R as a national space weather priority. Of
particular relevance to this document, Section 2(a) of PROSWIFT establishes the
importance of identifying research needs and promoting of opportunities for research-to-
operations and operations-to-research collaborations.
NASA’s role, consistent with both the NSW-SAP and PROSWIFT, is to support a
national research program to understand the Sun and its interactions with Earth and the
Solar System to advance space weather modeling and prediction capabilities applicable
to space weather forecasting; develop and operate space-weather-related research
missions, develop instrument capabilities, and models; and support the transition of
space weather models and technology from research to operations and from operations
to research.
NOAA's role is to provide timely and accurate operational space weather forecasts,
watches, warnings, alerts, and real-time space weather monitoring for the civil and
commercial sectors; and to ensure the continuous improvement of operational space
weather services, utilizing partnerships, as appropriate, with the research community,
including academia and the private sector, and relevant agencies to develop, validate,

B.7-3
test, and transition space weather observation platforms and models from research to
operations and from operations to research.
2. Submission and Evaluation Guidelines
2.1 General Considerations
Each Principal Investigator (PI) is allowed to submit one and only one Step-1 proposal
to this program element. Within the proposing team, the PI and Co-Investigators (Co-Is)
must each have specific and defined tasks in the project, and the tasks must be
essential to the completion of the project. Collaborators must show outside support for
any defined tasks which must be essential to completion of the project. Proposers are
strongly encouraged to include industry participants on their teams who would directly
use and benefit from the research results.
Proposals may be declared noncompliant based on either the Step-1 or Step-2 proposal
if they are outside the scope of the R2O2R program (see Section 1 above) or if they fail
to meet submission guidelines specified below (Section 2.2-2.4).
2.2 Two-Step Submission Process
To provide adequate notice to potential reviewers, this program uses a two-step
proposal submission process. The overall description of a two-step process can be
found in Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. See also Section 1.3 of
B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program Overview. Those who are not familiar with the
two-step process may refer to the "How to Submit a Step-1 Proposal" PDF under "Other
documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
A Step-1 proposal is required. Since reviewers are recruited based on the Step-1
proposal, the proposal team members may not be changed between the Step-1 and
Step-2 proposals, unless prior approval is obtained from the point of contact given in
Section 4. The title and broad science goals of the proposal may not be changed such
that they would significantly affect the scientific or technical expertise required to
properly evaluate a proposal. Changes in a proposal that impact the review may result
in a proposal being declared non-compliant.
2.3 Step-1 Proposals
A Step-1 proposal is required and must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 due
date (see e.g., Table 2 or 3 of ROSES-2022) by the organization’s Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR). No budget or other elements are required. Only
proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a full proposal.
Step-1 proposals will be checked for compliance, but they will not be evaluated. The
expected content is described below. Submission of the Step-1 proposal does not
obligate the offerors to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal later.
2.3.1 Step-1 Proposal Content
The Step-1 proposal is restricted to the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on
the NSPIRES web interface cover pages. References and any other supporting material
are not required, but, if included, must fit within the limit.

B.7-4
The Step-1 proposal must include the following information:
• Identification of which focus area is being addressed;
• The science goals and objectives to be addressed by the proposal;
• The expected forecast/specification/observation capabilities, and/or R2O2R
enhancements that will be developed;
• The expected metrics and validation methods that will be applied;
• A brief statement of the relevance of the problem to the focus area of this
SWR2O2R announcement.
No PDF attachment is required or permitted for Step-1 proposal submission. Proposers
will be invited by NSPIRES when they are able to submit their Step-2 proposals.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of
five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is. This information can be supplied in response to NSPIRES
cover page question at the time of submission of the Step-1 proposal.
2.4 Step-2 Proposals
The Step-2 (full) proposal must be submitted by the Step-2 due date (see Table 2 and
Table 3 of ROSES) by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). A budget
and other specified information is required.
Proposers must have had their Step-1 proposal invited to be eligible to submit a Step-2
proposal. Proposers that received a noncompliant letter in response to a Step-1
proposal are not eligible to submit the corresponding Step-2 proposal.
2.4.1 Step-2 Proposal Content
The process for preparation and submission of the Step-2 (full) proposals is the same
as that for any other ROSES proposal. Please refer to the "How to create and submit a
Step-2 proposal" PDF under "Other documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program
element. Guidelines for content and formatting Step-2 full proposals are specified in the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposals must adhere to formatting requirements
(e.g., margins, font sizes, line spacing) or may be declared noncompliant.
The Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section of Step-2 Proposals are restricted
to 12 pages and must include the following sections:
(1) The Space Weather R2O2R goals this proposal will address and the
appropriateness of the currently existing data sets (ground-based and/or space-
based), models (Community Coordinated Modeling Center hosted or other
accessible resource), and/or other publicly available and utilized resource(s);
(2) The existing need of the user or operational community to utilize space weather
that is being addressed and its importance relative to current operational and
forecasting capabilities;
(3) A full description of the methods and validation, resources needed, and the
technical approach to providing the proposed forecast products, specification
capability, and/or enabling enhancement;
(4) A plan of research that details the maturation of the research and provides
appropriate milestones by which progress may be tracked. An assessment of the

B.7-5
 initial and expected final maturity of the research project (e.g., as measured by
RL or AUL, as discussed below) upon completion of the two year effort must be
provided, and this progress must be consistent with the research plan;
(5) The forecast/specification/observation capabilities, and/or R2O2R-enabling
enhancement that will be developed, the timetable for producing them;
(6) The metrics and validation methods that will be used to evaluate forecast
products, specification capability, and/or enabling enhancement;
(7) A Data Management Plan must be included in the page-limited S/T/M section of
the proposal. It must include plans to provide public access to the models, tools,
and value-added products developed. For the required content, please consult
the ROSES Appendix B.1, Section 1.6.
Two commonly-used measures of technical maturity are the NOAA Readiness Level
(RL) and the Application Usability Level (AUL). In general, R2O2R efforts are expected
to progress research from the level of applied science to the threshold of transition
readiness (e.g., from RL=2 to RL=5 or AUL=2 to AUL=6); work that starts from a
different level of readiness is permissible, provided that its appropriateness for the
program and the viability of maturation is established in the proposal. If the proposed
effort will not result in a product of sufficient maturity within the 2-year lifetime of an
R2O2R award, the proposal should provide a pathway for further maturation that could
be accomplished during the Transition Step (Section 2.7).
Proposers contemplating software development are strongly encouraged to read
Section 1.6 of B.1 the Heliophysics Division Research Program Overview. It is expected
that capabilities being developed under an R2O2R award, including all relevant source
code, will be made available to NASA and other government agencies to allow for their
integration into operational environments. This requirement is automatically satisfied for
software if it is publicly released under a permissive license.
2.4.2 Required Additional Section in Step-2 Proposal NSPIRES Cover Pages:
Proposed Relevance to the Program Element.
Proposals to this program element must address the relevance of the proposal to either
or both of the two application-oriented areas of focus for this opportunity, as described
in Section 1, in a 4000-character plain text box on the NSPIRES cover pages and this
will be peer reviewed as part of the evaluation (see Section 2.5). Since it is not included
in the main body of the proposal, this text does not count against the 12-page limit for
the Scientific/Technical/Management section.
2.5 Evaluation Criteria
Compliant proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria defined in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers and as specified in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation. These criteria are Relevance, Merit, and Cost reasonableness.
Clarifications and additions specific to this program element are listed below.
The evaluation of the scientific and technical merit will include:
• The potential for this project to quantifiably improve specifications and/or
forecasts of space weather phenomena;

B.7-6
 • The sufficiency of the proposed metrics to establish improvement relative to the
state-of-the-art and to allow the measuring of progress in the specification or
forecasting of space weather, if applicable; and
• The degree to which the resulting product can be ingested into an operational
environment in a timely manner, including the appropriateness of the research
plan to achieve the planned maturation within the lifetime of an R2O2R award.
Moreover, part of the assessment of the impact of the proposed work (which is part of
Merit) will include:
1. consideration of whether and how software will be made available for non-
commercial use (see e.g., Section 2.4.1 of this program element and Section 1.6
of B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program Overview Overview)
2. whether or not an industry partner who will directly benefit from this work is
included in the team. Participants of the team must be listed in the standard
Summary Table of Work Effort described in Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation. As software availability and industry participation are
encouraged, rather than required, their inclusion may result in strengths in the
proposal evaluation, but their absence will not result in weaknesses.
Cost reasonableness will include assessing the amount of work to be accomplished
versus the amount of time proposed.
2.6 Joint Agency/Community Evaluation
Given the unique nature of this opportunity to support the Space Weather Science
Application program, proposal reviewers will include both scientific peers and
knowledgeable representatives from the space weather operations community.
Proposals must discuss the relationship of the proposed effort to the advancement of
the Space Weather R2O2R objective.
NASA (on behalf of NASA, NOAA, and DoD) will review the proposals in accordance
with NASA's processes/criteria connected to the R2O2R objective. The final award
recommendations will be made in consultation with the other agencies’ program officers
and final selections will be made by the NASA Selecting Official.
2.7 Transition Step
A subset of awards may be selected to continue to an additional one-year Transition
Step. The intent of this step is to focus the efforts of those selected awards to get ready
for or to transition into a testbed process. A testbed process is one that prepares results
and products for space weather operations. The Transition Step is not an extension to
complete the awarded effort.
Only those who have received an award through this call and have submitted a
Transition Plan are eligible for the Transition Step. To be eligible for transition funding, a
Transition Plan must be submitted no later than 90 days prior to the award end of
performance, see below. The Transition Plan is for a one-year effort focused on the
preparation of the results and products of the awarded effort for transition into an
operational environment. Further details of the Transition Plan will be provided by NASA

B.7-7
to the PI within 90 days after the of one-year anniversary of the award, and after receipt
of the required annual report.
The selection criteria of this Transition Step will be provided when the details of the
Transition Plan are provided.
The final recommendations for awards to continue into a Transition Step are made in
consultation with an interagency space weather steering committee, composed of
representatives from NASA, NOAA, NSF and DoD, and administered through the
standard selection process of the NASA Heliophysics Division.
3. Available Funds
The total funding available for the first year of new proposals submitted in response to
this solicitation is expected to be about $2.0M. This funding is expected to support
approximately eight awards depending upon funds available. Awards will not be more
than two years in duration. It is expected that combined 2-year budgets of most
proposals will not exceed $500K.
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~$2.0M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~8
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 2 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of 6 months after Step-2 proposal due date
investigation
Page limit for the central Science- 12 pages
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to Heliophysics
Space Weather Research-to-Operations-to-
Research in NASA, DoD, and NOAA.
Proposals that are relevant to this program
are, by definition, relevant to one or more of
the supporting agencies.
General information and overview of See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See Section 2.4.1 of this program element
proposals and Section IV and Table 1 of ROSES and,
finally, Section 2 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers.

B.7-8
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposals
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program element
See NSPIRES Online Help, the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-SWR2O2R
Jesse Woodroffe
Heliophysics Division
Science mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (612) 251-4800
Email: jesse.r.woodroffe@nasa.gov
B.7-9
B.8 U HELIOPHYSICS TECHNOLOGY AND INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR SCIENCE
NOTICE: New this year is the ITD from Non-Heliophysics
Technologists (ITD-NHT) and the ITD in the Space Weather
Environment (ITD-SWE) described in Sections 4 and 5 of this
document. The Science Goals for these sub-elements are identified in
Sections 4 and 5. Proposal submission will not use the two-step
process. Neither Step-1 proposals nor NOIs are requested for this
program element. See Section 6 for details.
All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template for
Current and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of
time commitment and use of the DMP template is encouraged. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
32TU

appendix-b-roses-proposals . U32T

1. Scope of Program
The Heliophysics Instrument Development for Science (H-TIDeS) program requires the
development and application of innovative new instruments, technologies and
capabilities to enhance the ability to achieve significant progress toward the scientific
and technical challenges in heliophysics in the coming years.
H-TIDeS is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers
interested in this program element are encouraged to read B.1, The Heliophysics
Research Program Overview for Heliophysics-specific goals and requirements.
Common requirements for all ROSES elements and proposals are found in the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation, the NASA Guidebook for Proposers , and the order of
32T 32T

precedence for proposers is the following: ROSES Element B.8 (this document) takes
precedence followed by B.1, The Heliophysics Research Program Overview, followed
by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and, finally, the Proposer’s Guidebook.
Proposers should be familiar with all of these resources.
1.1 Solicited Investigations
H-TIDeS seeks to advance the development of new instruments and technologies and
their application to enable investigation of key heliophysics science questions. This is
done through incubating innovative concepts and development/maturation of
instruments and technologies. It is intended that instruments and technologies
developed and matured through H-TIDeS would then be proposed for demonstration in
flight. This could be done by proposing to H-LCAS or H-FORT, or to a technology
demonstration flight opportunity to mature by demonstration in a relevant environment.
Promising instruments and technologies (such as sensors and detectors) are sought, as
described below. To advance the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) of promising
instruments and technologies, H-TIDeS utilizes the following sub-elements:
• Laboratory Nuclear, Atomic, and Plasma Physics (LNAPP) Program: The LNAPP
program supports studies that probe fundamental nuclear, atomic, and plasma
physical processes and produce chemical and spectroscopic measurements that
support spacecraft observations and atmospheric models (see Section 2 below).

B.8-1
• Instrument Technology Development (ITD) Program: This sub-element includes
innovative instrument and technology development that may be proposed as
candidate experiments for future space flight opportunities (see Section 3 below).
• Instrument Technology Development from Non-Heliophysics Technologists (ITD-
NHT): This new sub-element includes innovative instrument and technology
development that may be proposed as candidate experiments for future space flight
opportunities. The goal of this sub-element to invite technologists from outside our
Heliophysics community who can infuse innovative and transformative ideas to enable
future Heliohysics Science Goals and Objectives (see Section 4 below).
• Instrument Technology Development on the Space Working Environment (ITD-SWE):
This supports the development of instruments and technologies specifically aimed at
characterizing the population of small space objects and their dynamics, and to
investigate the interaction of this population with a spacecraft body inasmuch as it
leads to an altered local science environment. This Instrument Technology
Development opportunity is specifically aimed at future ISS deployment opportunities,
including ISS hosted payloads, through solicitations such as HFORT (ROSES
program element B.11). (see Section 5 below).
Proposals to the H-TIDeS program shall link the proposed work to the NASA
Heliophysics Science Plan as documented in the proposal traceability matrix (see
example in Table 1 of this program element) and supported by the proposal text:
A) NASA Heliophysics Science Goal(s);
B) The science questions to be answered in achieving the Science Goals;
C) The proposed investigation objective(s) required to address the science goals
(either technological or observational or both).
Table 1. Example Science Traceability Matrix
A. B. C. Investigation Objective Requirements Future Mission, Top Level
Science Science Measurement Requirement Projected Requirements
Goal(s) Questions Performance
Goal # Question # Examples: Examples:

Goal # Question # Temporal XX Sec. XXX Sec. Observing strategies:

Resolution requires yaw and elevation
Etc. Etc. maneuvers
Etc.
Launch window: to meet
Precision YY% YYY% nadir and limb overlap
requirements. Window
Accuracy ZZ % ZZZ% applies day to day

The Heliophysics Science Goals have a broad scope, while a proposed objective is a
more narrowly focused part of a strategy to achieve the goal(s) (e.g. identify specific
science questions to be addressed and/or demonstrate a new technology is capable of
obtaining future measurements that may bring closure to the science questions or
goals). Proposed investigations must achieve their proposed technological objectives
(letter C, above).

B.8-2
The ability to determine whether a proposed investigation is successful depends on a
well-formulated articulation of the proposed science question(s) and investigation
objectives. Each proposal shall clearly define its science question(s), shall demonstrate
how the science questions are derived from the high-level science goals, and shall
show how the science question(s) lead to investigation objectives that subsequently
map into measurement, data and instrument requirements. Instructions for proposal
submission are provided in Section 6.
Of particular interest are proposals which are transformative, namely high (intellectual)
risk and high-impact investigations as defined below:
High Risk: The proposed investigation will test novel or significant hypotheses, for which
there are scant precedents or preliminary data or that run counter to the
existing scientific consensus.
High Impact: The proposed investigation, if successful, will have a large effect on
current thinking, methods or practice.
As part of the proposal submission process, PIs will be asked if their proposal is high
risk and high impact and invited to provide a justification in response to an NSPIRES
cover page question. Proposals that are submitted as high risk and high impact will be
evaluated accordingly.
2. Laboratory Nuclear, Atomic and Plasma Physics
The Laboratory Nuclear, Atomic and Plasma Physics (LNAPP) sub element supports
studies that probe fundamental nuclear, atomic, and plasma physical processes and
produce chemical and spectroscopic measurements that support spacecraft
observations and atmospheric models. They provide benchmarks for integrating theory
and modeling with observation in heliophysics. Laboratory experiments allow the use of
a controlled environment to perform reproducible measurements that shed light on key
processes with the heliophysics environment. These experiments are directed toward
understanding basic processes. Additionally, there are also important experiments that
are directly used to facilitate the interpretation of spacecraft observations, e.g.,
spectroscopic or cosmic ray measurements. As such, LNAPP encompasses
measurements of fundamental atomic parameters, e.g., cross sections associated with
various processes.
3. Instrument Technology Development
The Instrument Technology Development (ITD) sub-element supports the development
of instruments, sensors/detectors concepts that show promise for use in scientific
investigations on, or give rise to, future heliophysics missions. Proposals for ITD must
demonstrate relevance to the Heliophysics Program, including clearly defined scientific
goals appropriate for future heliophysics missions. The goal of the program is to define
and develop scientific instruments and/or technologies that may be proposed in
response to future Announcements of Opportunity, and which will enable future
Heliophysics Science investigations.
Either new concepts or methods to improve the performance of existing instruments or
technologies may be proposed, provided they would be candidates for use in space.
Among the characteristics typically desirable in space-quality detection systems are

B.8-3
high sensitivity to relevant signals, low mass, low vulnerability to particle radiation
effects, low power consumption, compactness, ability to operate in a vacuum (such that
high-voltage arcing is minimized), vibration tolerance, ease and robustness of
integration with instrumentation, and ease of remote operation, including reduced
transient effects and ease of calibration.
Small satellites are increasingly playing a larger role in NASA planning as a means to
execute scientific missions at far lower cost and complexity than typical space science
missions. As such, the Heliophysics Division (HPD) seeks to make ITD awards across a
range of mission concepts, including technologies that will enable smaller missions in
deep space.
4. Instrument Technology Development from Non-Heliophysics Technologists
This new Instrument Technology Development from Non-Heliophysics Technologists
(ITD-NHT) sub-element supports the development of instruments, sensors/detectors
concepts that show promise for use in scientific investigations on, or give rise to, future
heliophysics missions. All technology goals are the same as in Section 3 with the
following addition: The goal of this sub-element to invite technologists from outside our
Heliophysics community who can infuse innovative ideas to enable future Heliohysics
Science Goals and Objectives. The principal Investigator must be a technologist from
outside the Heliophysics Science community. The Co-investigator must be a
Heliophysics Scientist who acts as the mentor on the proposed work to ensure that the
proposed technology shows connection between the relevant science goals, the
proposal objectives and the measurements required to achieve those objectives in a
Traceability Matrix (see Section 6.2, Proposal Content ), and guides the work through
the lifetime of the project to ensure that the work adheres to the proposed Traceability
Matrix. The proposed budget can include time for the Co-Investigator.
5. Instrument Technology Development on the Space Working Environment
The new Instrument Technology Development on the Space Working Environment
(ITD-SWE) sub-element is geared toward technologies that enable the understanding of
the dynamics and impacts of the full space working environment, from characterizing
and understanding that environment to its effects on Heliophysics Science and the
instruments used to investigate it. The science goals to be addressed for this new sub-
element are as follows:
1. Characterize the dusty plasma regime at low earth orbit (ISS altitude) and its
impacts on the ITM system, spacecraft operations and the science instruments
they typically carry to investigate HPD science.
2. Characterize the micro meteorite and small space debris population at low earth
orbit (ISS altitude), their impacts on spacecraft operations and the science
instruments they typically carry to investigate HPD science.
This ITD-SWE supports the development of instruments and technologies specifically
aimed at characterizing the population of small space objects and their dynamics, and
to investigate the interaction of this population with a spacecraft body inasmuch as it
leads to an altered local science environment. Knowledge and characterization of small
space objects and their operational environment to support safe, stable, and sustainable

B.8-4
space science activities is sought. Small space objects are defined from the nano-meter
scale of dusty plasma to millimeter sized objects such as meteoric fragments or small
space debris. This Instrument Technology Development opportunity is specifically
aimed at future ISS deployment opportunities, including ISS hosted payloads, through
solicitations such as HFORT (ROSES program element B.11). While many payloads
targeting the space working environment are typically attached externally, we would
encourage optical concepts to consider the utilization of the ISS nadir pointing WORF
window and associated experimental rack:
( https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/WORF.html ).
32T 32T

6. Proposal Submission Content and Evaluation

6.1 Proposal Submission
This year, proposal submission will not use the two-step process. Neither Notices of
Intent (NOIs) nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program element. The
guidelines for submitting proposals are provided below.
Each Principal Investigator is allowed to submit one and only one proposal to each sub-
element (LNAPP, ITD, ITD-NHT, ITD-SWE) of this solicitation. The Principal
Investigator is expected to invest a substantial portion of his/her time, 25-30%, to the
investigation. Use of multiple team members is discouraged. The PI, Co-Investigators
(Co-Is), and any paid team members must each have a specific and defined task
essential to the completion of the project. Unfunded team members who are performing
tasks that are essential to completion of the project are unfunded Co-Is, not
collaborators. Unfunded Co-Is must show support for their effort, e.g., by the inclusion of
a letter of support as is required for foreign Co-Is, see Table 1 of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation. Proposals may be declared non-compliant if they are outside the scope
of the H-TIDeS Program as defined in previous sections, or if they fail to meet
submission guidelines specified below.
Proposals must be submitted electronically by the due date given in Tables 2 and 3 of
32T 32T 32T 32T

ROSES. An Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) from the institution of the

PI must submit the proposal. A budget and other specified information is required.
6.2 Proposal Content
Guidelines for content and formatting of proposals are specified in Section IV(b)ii and
Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Important Note: A science traceability matrix is required for every proposal. The matrix
must show the connection between the relevant science goals, the proposal objectives
and the measurements required to achieve those objectives. An example science
traceability matrix is provided in Table 1 of this program element.
Proposals must demonstrate relevance to the Heliophysics Program, including clearly
defined scientific goals appropriate for current and/or future heliophysics missions and
linkage to the proposal objectives, and that the proposed work is a necessary precursor
to solving specific scientific problems. The proposers are not expected to apply the
results of their efforts to the science problem(s) within the time period of the proposed
effort. Proposals for projects that aim to produce data products for wide use across the

B.8-5
heliophysics community should explain how those products would be made available to
the intended users in a timely fashion. Proposals to the H-TIDeS program must contain
the following elements within the Science/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section:
I) The proposal shall describe the investigation to be performed, the types of
measurements to be taken; the characteristics, precision, and accuracy required to
attain the investigation objectives; and the projected instrument performance. This
section shall describe the data to be returned in the course of the investigation. The
quality (e.g., resolution, coverage, pointing accuracy, measurement precision, signal
to noise ratio, background identification/removal, etc.) and quantity (bits, images,
etc.) of data shall be described. The relationship between the proposed data
products (e.g., ancillary or calibration data, theoretical calculations, higher order
analytical or data products, laboratory data, etc.) and the investigation objectives, as
well as the expected results, shall be described. How the science products and data
obtained will be used to fulfill the scientific requirements shall be demonstrated and
supported by quantitative analysis.
II) A traceability matrix from science goals to measurement requirements to instrument
requirements (functional and performance), and to top-level mission requirements
shall be provided in tabular form and supported by narrative discussion. Note that
the term "mission" refers to future mission(s) envisioned to address the proposed
science question and utilizing the research and/or technology development being
investigated. Projected instrument performance shall be compared to instrument
performance requirements. This matrix provides the reference points and tools
needed to track overall investigation requirements. A sample science traceability
matrix is shown in Table 1 of this program element.
III) A science data management plan is required for all proposed investigations. All data
obtained through H-TIDeS funded efforts shall be made public in a prompt manner.
Proposals must describe the management plan of any science data obtained in the
investigation described. ITD proposals must discuss the release of data obtained in
an investigation characterizing the performance of an instrument technology,
although it is permissible to summarize this data. In addition to the public release of
data, proposals must describe the analysis, interpretation, and dissemination in
professional meetings and publications of the results of the proposed investigation.
The Data Management Plan requirements are described in B.1, The Heliophysics
Research Program Overview.
IV) Proposals submitted to ITD, ITD-NHT and ITD-SWE are required to include a
technology summary section, as shown in Table 2 of this program element. This
section requires an assessment of the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) at the
start of the proposed work, and the projected TRL at the conclusion of the proposed
work.
One of the goals of the H-TIDeS program is to identify promising technologies for
enabling future heliophysics missions. The TRL is a metric-based assessment of the
maturation of new technologies. The NASA Technology Readiness Level definitions are
provided at https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf . The primary
32T 32T

technology area refers to the technology areas defined in the NASA Technology
Taxonomy ( https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/taxonomy/index.html ).
32T 32T

B.8-6
All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template for Current and Pending
Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of time commitment, see
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-
32T

proposals . 32T

Table 2. An Assessment of Technology Benefits and Advancements

Primary Taxonomy Area (TA) Refer to NASA Technology Taxonomy.
Provide TA number down to level 2 or 3.
Target Destination (The Sun, Earth, Select up to 3.
Moon, Mars, Others inside the Solar
System, Outside the Solar System,
Foundational Knowledge)
Start TRL*
Estimated End TRL*
Anticipated Benefits
* Refer to https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf
3 2T 32T

6.3 Proposal Evaluation

Proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria specified in the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation Section V(a) and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. These criteria are
Relevance, Merit, and Cost reasonableness. Clarifications and additions specific to this
program element are listed below.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include the scientific impact of the
proposed technology development, if successful. The review process naturally favors
proposals that are transformative. The evaluation of relevance will include evaluation of
the required traceability matrix.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of five
experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is. The PI can confidentially provide this information by
sending an email to the Point of Contact listed in Section 8 of this Program Element by
the proposal due date.
Proposers are expected to respond to requests to conduct reviews for up to four
proposals in the H-TIDeS, H-LCAS, H-FOS, or H-FORT programs. Much of the science
expertise lies in the PIs and Co-Is, since nearly the entire heliophysics community
proposes. In order to maintain a high caliber review process, it is important to request
that the heliophysics experts conduct reviews.
7. Award Duration and Type
The maximum duration of awards is three years. H-TIDeS is not expected to award
contracts as it would not be appropriate for the nature of the work solicited. H-TIDeS
does not make separate awards to the Principal Investigator (PI) and Co-Investigators
(Co-Is) of the same investigation at different institutions, except in those cases where a
Co-Investigator is affiliated with a U.S. Government Laboratory, including NASA
Centers and JPL (see Section IV(d) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation), in which
case NASA separately funds that Co-Investigator through a direct transfer of funds. In

B.8-7
all other cases, the PI institution is expected to fund participating Co-I(s). No separate
Co-I cost proposals will be accepted.
8. Summary of Key Information
Projected program budget for ITD, ITD-NHT: $2M
first year of new awards ITD-SWE: $1.5M
LNAPP: $0.4M
Anticipated number of new awards ITD, ITD-NHT: 5-6
pending adequate proposals of merit ITD-SWE: 4-5
LNAPP: 1-2
Maximum duration of awards 3 years.
Neither Step-1 proposals nor NOIs are requested for this program element.
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
32T 32T 32T 32T

Planning date for start of LNAPP and 6 months after proposal due date.
ITD Investigations
Page limit for the central Science- 15 pages; see also Table 1 of ROSES
Technical-Management section of Summary of Solicitation and the NASA 32T

proposal. Guidebook for Proposers . 32T

General information and See ROSES Summary of Solicitation.

overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
See B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-
32T 32T

submission of proposals 4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers

Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
32T 32T

via NSPIRES available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or

32T 32T

(202) 479-9376)
Web site for submission of proposals http://grants.gov/ (help desk available
32T 32T

via Grants.gov at support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)

32T 32T

Funding opportunity number for

downloading an application package NNH22ZDA001N-HTIDS
from Grants.gov

B.8-8
Points of contact concerning this
program, both of whom share this
postal address:
Heliophysics Division
ITD, ITD-NHT, and LNAPP
Roshanak Hakimzadeh
Telephone: (202) 358-0784
Email: hakimzadeh@nasa.gov
32T 32T

Science Mission Directorate ITD-SWE

NASA Headquarters Reinhard Friedel
Washington, DC 20546-0001 Telephone: (202) 281-6360
Email: reinhard.h.friedel@nasa.gov
32T 32T

B.8-9
B.9 HELIOPHYSICS LOW COST ACCESS TO SPACE
NOTICE: Amended December 28, 2022. This amendment delays the
proposal due date for this program element due to January 19, 2023.
Additionally, due to pandemic-induced launch cancellations in the
NASA SMD Scientific Balloon Program LDB campaigns in the
Antarctic, no new LCAS suborbital proposals requiring an Antarctic
Long Duration Balloon flight before the campaign season beginning
in November 2028 will be considered for selection. Constraints on the
SMD balloon program funding may also delay flights utilizing the
Esrange Space Center, Sweden and other “remote” campaigns as the
current backlog in balloon flight manifest is worked down.
NOTICE: Amended September 23, 2022. This amendment releases the
final text and due dates for this program element, which had been
listed as "TBD". Notices of Intent (NOIs) are mandatory. The due date
for mandatory NOIs is November 17, 2022, and the due date for the
final proposal is January 12, 2023.
All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template for
Current and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of
time commitment. Use of the DMP template is encouraged. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
appendix-b-roses-proposals.
A suite of new-generation commercial suborbital platforms are now
available, in addition to the traditional NASA-provided suborbital
platforms. Thus, proposers must provide a Payload Requirements
Document along with both the mandatory NOI and proposal, in
addition to other required elements, to allow NASA to make a
preliminary (non-binding) launch provider assessment. Details are
provided below in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.
1. Scope of Program
The Heliophysics Low Cost Access to Space (H-LCAS) program seeks to investigate
key heliophysics science questions and to advance the development of technologies
and their application to enable new investigations of heliophysics science questions in
the coming years. This is achieved through investigations flown on suborbital rockets,
stratospheric balloons, or airborne platforms. Note that in addition to the traditional
LCAS platforms provided through the NASA Sounding Rockets Operations Contract
(NSROC), the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (CSBF) and the NASA Airborne
Science Program (ASP), a new-generation of commercial sub-orbital platforms are now
available for LCAS investigations through the NASA Space Technology Mission
Directorate (STMD) commercial suborbital Flight Opportunities Program (FOP).
It is anticipated that some of the technologies developed through the H-TIDeS (program
element B.8) might be proposed to H-LCAS to mature by demonstration in a relevant
environment, however, this is not a prerequisite for submitting a proposal to H-LCAS.

B.9-1
H-LCAS is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers
interested in this program element are encouraged to see B.1 The Heliophysics
Research Program Overview, for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Default
requirements for all ROSES elements are found in the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation and the most basic information for all Agency solicitations in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. The order of precedence is the following: Program Element
B.9 (this document), followed by B.1 The Heliophysics Research Program Overview,
followed by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and last the Proposer’s Guidebook.
Proposers should be familiar with all of these resources.
1.1 Solicited Investigations
The LCAS program supports investigations addressing NASA Heliophysics Science
Goals using investigator-developed instrumentation that must be completed through
suborbital flights. Proposals submitted to H-LCAS must have the following
characteristics:
1. The investigation objectives must address NASA Heliophysics Science Goals and
Objectives (see Heliophysics Overview, B.1);
2. The investigation must develop or enhance an instrument/sensor for flight;
3. Suborbital flight of the investigation-developed instrument/sensor is required to
achieve investigation objectives;
4. Data acquired from flight is reduced, analyzed, and interpreted in terms of
investigation objectives;
5. The reduced (calibrated) data is archived in a NASA on-line facility and the
interpretation is published in professional journals;
6. The investigation is completed within a time interval less than or equal to four years,
typically three years for all but complex investigations;
7. The investigation cost is consistent with the available program funding (Section 6 of
this program element);
8. The Principal Investigator (PI) manages all the program resources (including
schedule and cost) and no reserve is held by NASA.
Suborbital launch vehicle services include those provided by the NASA Sounding
Rocket Program Office (SRPO), the NASA Balloon Program Office (BPO), and NASA
Airborne Science Program, as well as services provided by the Space Technology
Mission Directorate (STMD) commercial sub-orbital Flight Opportunities Program.
Detailed information, including suborbital specifications and points of contact, is found in
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, Section VIII(b), Suborbital-Class Investigations:
I. NASA-provided Sounding Rocket Services;
https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/srpo.html;
II. NASA-provided Balloon Services;
https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code820/index.html;
III. NASA-provided Airborne Services.
https://airbornescience.nasa.gov
IV. Commercial Suborbital Flight Opportunities
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/flightopportunities/flightproviders

B.9-2
Additionally, RideShare or Hosted Payload on alternative sub-orbital opportunities may
be proposed on an ad hoc basis. The funding and management of these alternative
services will be established on a case-by-case basis.
Due to pandemic-induced launch cancellations in the NASA SMD Scientific
Balloon Program LDB campaigns in the Antarctic, no new LCAS suborbital
proposals requiring an Antarctic Long Duration Balloon flight before the
campaign season beginning in November 2028 will be considered for
selection. Constraints on the SMD balloon program funding may also
delay flights utilizing the Esrange Space Center, Sweden and other
“remote” campaigns as the current backlog in balloon flight manifest is
worked down. [new text inserted December 28, 2022]
LCAS is expected to lead the way in the development of much of the instrument
concepts for future solar, heliospheric, magnetospheric, and ionosphere-thermosphere-
mesosphere (ITM) missions. LCAS-investigations provide unique opportunities not only
for executing intrinsically meritorious science investigations, but also for advancing the
technology readiness levels of future space flight sensors and supporting technologies
and for preparing future leaders of NASA space flight missions, such as junior
researchers and graduate students.
1.2 Traceability Matrix
Proposals to H-LCAS shall link the proposed work to the NASA Heliophysics Science
Goals and Objectives (see B.1), documented in the proposal traceability matrix (Table
B.9-1, below) and supported by the proposal text:
A) NASA Heliophysics Science Goal(s);
B) The investigation-specific science goals, formulated as questions, proposed to
achieve significant progress toward the Heliophysics Science Goals and
Objectives.
C) The proposed investigation objective(s) required to address the science goals
(either technological or observational or both)
The three Heliophysics Science Goals have a broad scope, while an objective is a more
narrowly focused part of a strategy to address the investigation-specific science goal(s).
While a successful proposal is expected to bring closure to the proposed investigation
objectives, it is not necessary to provide closure to the science goals and it is unlikely to
bring closure to the associated Heliophysics Science Goals and Objectives. For
example, identify specific science questions to be addressed and/or demonstrate a new
technology is capable of obtaining future measurements that may bring closure to the
science questions or goals. Proposed investigations must achieve their proposed
technological objectives (letter C in Table B.9-1, below).

B.9-3
 Table B.9-1. Example Science Traceability Matrix
A. B. C. Investigation Objective Requirements Mission Top Level
Science Science Measurement Requirement Projected Requirements
Goal(s) Questions Performance
Goal # Question # Examples: Examples:
Observing strategies:
Goal # Question # Temporal XX Sec. XXX Sec. requires yaw and
Resolution elevation maneuvers.
Etc. Etc.
Launch window: to meet
Etc.
nadir and limb overlap
Precision YY% YYY% requirements. Window
applies day to day.
Accuracy ZZ % ZZZ%

The ability to determine whether a proposed investigation is successful depends on a

well-formulated articulation of the proposed science question(s) and investigation
objectives. Each proposal shall clearly define its science question(s), shall demonstrate
how the science questions are derived from the high-level Science Goals, and shall
show how the science question(s) lead to investigation objectives that subsequently
map into measurement, data and instrument requirements. Instructions for proposal
submission are provided in Section 4.
1.3 High Risk High Impact Investigations
Of particular interest are high-impact investigations of high (intellectual) risk, as defined
below (see also Section V(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation):
High Risk: The proposed investigation will test novel or significant hypotheses, for which
there are scant precedents or preliminary data or that run counter to the
existing scientific consensus.
High Impact: The proposed investigation, if successful, will have a large effect on
current thinking, methods or practice.
As part of the proposal submission process, PIs will be asked if their proposal is high
risk and high impact and invited to provide a justification in response to an NSPIRES
cover page question. The review process naturally favors proposals that are deemed
high impact and low risk by the evaluators. Investigations identified as high impact by
the evaluators and high intellectual risk, as defined above, (as opposed to high technical
risk) will be considered for selection for programmatic reasons (e.g., as described in
Section V(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation).
1.4 Export Control
Export Control: Export licenses are required for all foreign persons accessing flight
programs. H-LCAS Principal Investigators (PIs) should contact the program office with
whom they are working regarding PI responsibilities in this arena. Procuring the
required State Department licenses can take some time, so PIs are urged to begin the
process well before team members need access to the actual flight hardware. Appendix
A of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers includes links to information regarding U.S.
export regulations, export-control guidelines applicable to proposals including foreign
participation, and how to handle export-controlled material in proposals.

B.9-4
2. Proposal Submission Guidelines
2.1 General Guidelines
To be eligible, proposals to this program element must be preceded by a mandatory
Notice of Intent (NOI). The guidelines for the contents of the NOI are provided in
Section 2.2 The guidelines for the technical contents of the proposal are provided in
Section 2.3.
A proposal must be submitted electronically by the due date given in Tables 2 and 3 of
ROSES. An Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) from the institution of the
PI must submit the proposal. A budget and other specified information is required.
Each Principal Investigator is allowed to submit one and only one proposal to H-LCAS.
The Principal Investigator is expected to invest a substantial portion of his/her time. Co-
investigators must each have a specific and defined task in the project, and the task
must be essential to completion of the project. Use of multiple team members is
discouraged, and team members are expected to have defined tasks in the project.
Collaborators are expected to have defined tasks in the project with a separate source
of funding identified for completion of the tasks.
The number of investigations that can be supported is limited and heavily dependent on
the funds available to this program. Note that NASA does not carry reserves to
accommodate any cost overrun incurred by a particular investigation, including the loss
of the payload owing to a flight system failure. Therefore, failure to achieve the
proposed goals within the proposed time and budget could require either de-scoping the
initially proposed investigation, delaying it, canceling a particular launch date
opportunity, or canceling the investigation altogether.
Science support elements, such as science radars, lidars, ionosondes, optical sites, and
the associated logistics, can be supported, when appropriate. The funding for these
support elements must be included in science proposal budgets.
Proposals may be declared non-compliant if they are outside the scope of the H-LCAS
Program as defined in previous sections, or if they fail to meet submission guidelines
specified below.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of five
experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is. The PI can confidentially provide this information either in
response to NSPIRES cover page questions associated with the NOI or by sending an
email the Point of Contact listed in Section 6 of this program element by the due date of
the proposal.
2.2 Notice of Intent Content
A Notice of Intent (NOI) is mandatory. The mandatory Notice of Intent will consist of an
NSPIRES-based proposal summary/abstract and a single uploaded PDF file consisting
of a science traceability matrix and a Payload Requirements Document (PRD). The
NOI-stage PRD, which may be found under “Other documents” on the NSPIRES page
for this program element, consists of a few questions about the proposed payload. This
information will allow NASA to perform a preliminary assessment on potentially

B.9-5
compatible flight platforms (NASA-provided and/or NASA-contracted commercial
vehicles) and, where appropriate, to provide feedback on the flight vehicle(s) that might
be the best match to aid development of a full proposal.
The combination of the NOI summary/abstract with the NOI science traceability matrix
provides the necessary perspective for an assessment of the suitability of an
investigation for flight utilizing the STMD FOP. The NOI and the response from NASA
are non-binding. The primary objective is to provide the proposer with information
relevant to the likely launch campaign in order to enable a sufficiently accurate proposal
S/T/M and budget. This information will also be used to initiate the organization of peer
review panels, so it is requested that the identification of team members and their
affiliations be as accurate and complete as possible. However, it is not necessary to
request permission to change team membership between the submission of the NOI
and the submission of the proposal.
The questions addressed in the PRD are listed below. The answers to the questions
should be the proposer’s best-effort estimates at the time of submission of the NOI.
Based on this data, NASA may suggest a preliminary launch provider for the full
proposal.
• Type of suborbital vehicle (high-altitude balloon or rocket-powered vehicle)
• Approx. dimensions (width, height, length) [m]
• Approx. mass [kg]; Approx. power [W]
• Launch location
• Flight date requirements
• Desired minimum altitude
• Desired duration for microgravity / observation time
• Requirement for exposure to vacuum conditions (yes/no)
• Requirements for pointing
MS Word and PDF versions of a blank NOI-stage PRD are downloadable from under
"Other documents" on the NSPIRES page of this program element. .
The NASA response to the NOI will primarily consist of the results of an evaluation of
the suitability of launch providers, provided via email to the individual listed in NSPIRES
as Principal Investigator. Additional comments may be included in this response on the
compatibility of the science objectives described in the abstract to the H-LCAS program.
The NASA evaluation of the NOI is non-binding and provided to assist the development
of high-quality H-LCAS proposals.

B.9-6
2.3 Proposal Content
Proposals that are not preceded by an NOI (See Section 2.2) will be returned without
review. Proposals must be for a complete investigation, based on clearly defined
investigation objectives that address scientific questions appropriate for the
Heliophysics missions linked back to Heliophysics Science Objectives (see B.1). The
investigation objectives must be achieved through a process, including payload
construction, space or near-space flight, data analysis, data archiving, and publication
of results. In addition, proposals must also provide sufficient information on the flight
performance characteristic and the mission requirements in order to demonstrate the
feasibility of the investigation.
The Science/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section of proposals submitted to this
program element is limited to 20 pages. In addition to the requirements provided in the
Checklist for Proposers, Table 1 of ROSES-2022, the S/T/M section must include the
following information:
I) The proposal shall describe the investigation to be performed, the types of
measurements to be taken; the characteristics, precision, and accuracy required to
attain the investigation objectives; and the projected instrument performance. This
section shall describe the data to be returned in the course of the investigation. The
quality (e.g., resolution, coverage, pointing accuracy, measurement precision, signal
to noise ratio, background identification/removal, etc.) and quantity (bits, images,
etc.) of data that must be returned shall be described. The relationship between the
proposed data products (e.g., flight data, ancillary or calibration data, theoretical
calculations, higher order analytical or data products, laboratory data, etc.) and the
investigation objectives, as well as the expected results, shall be described. How the
science products and data obtained will be used to fulfill the scientific requirements
shall be demonstrated and supported by quantitative analysis.
II) A traceability matrix from investigation-specific science goals to measurement
requirements to instrument requirements (functional and performance), and to top-
level mission requirements shall be provided in tabular form and supported by
narrative discussion. Projected instrument performance shall be compared to
instrument performance requirements. This matrix provides the reference points and
tools needed to track overall investigation requirements. A sample science
traceability matrix is shown in Table B.9-1 of this program element. The science
traceability matrix shall be included as a table within the S/T/M section. This matrix
should summarize how the instrument performance requirements are a direct
consequence of the proposed science questions and investigation objectives. The
traceability matrix is a critical tool in both the evaluation of a proposed investigation
as well as the management and implementation of a selected investigation.
III) A science data management plan is required for all proposed investigations. All data
obtained through H-LCAS funded efforts shall be made public in a prompt manner.
Proposals must describe the management plan of any science data obtained in the
investigation described. Proposals must describe the management plan of any
science data obtained in the investigation described. Proposals must discuss the
release of data obtained in an investigation characterizing the performance of an
instrument technology, although it is permissible to summarize this data. In addition

B.9-7
 to the public release of data, proposals must describe the analysis, interpretation,
and dissemination in professional meetings and publications of the results of the
proposed investigation. The data management plan (DMP) is a separate section of
the proposal, limited to 2 pages in length and does not count against the S/T/M 20-
page limit. See Section 1.6 of B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program Overview, for
more information about the DMP.
IV) A comprehensive proposal-stage Payload Requirements Document (PRD). The
fillable form for the comprehensive PRD will be made available to researchers under
“Other documents” on the NSPIRES page for H-LCAS. The PRD will not count
against the proposal page limit. NASA plans to provide a platform-specific PRD to
proposers in response to the information provided with the mandatory NOI. The PRD
will be used by NASA to evaluate the proposed flight test plan and flight provider.
The content of the PRD is not used to establish any portion of the scientific and
technical merit of the proposed investigation. Please note that while proposers might
express a provider preference, NASA has in the past - and will continue in the
foreseeable future - to reserve the right to assign the flight provider.
a. Researchers requesting suborbital flight opportunities using NASA-provided
platforms (either traditional sounding rockets or balloons, or NASA-procured
commercial suborbital platforms) are not required to obtain quotes or cost-
estimates for the requested suborbital/suborbital-class flight services, nor should
the cost of the platform be included in the budget.
b. Proposers may negotiate their own launch services as part of their proposal (so-
called Proposer-Provided commercial Suborbital Launch Vehicles – PPSLVs), in
which case the PI is responsible for all aspects of that service contract including
its full cost (see Sections VIII(b) and VIII(c)(iv) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation). Note: The difference between PPSLV and the STMD FOP launch
options it that the PI is responsible for the cost, negotiation and management of
the launch services under the PPSLV while NASA takes responsibility for these
aspects under STMD FOP. A proposer might consider the PPCLV approach in
the case an investigation is uniquely suited to a commercial launch service that is
not currently listed as available via STMD FOP. However, before committing to
this approach, the proposer may approach the FOP Point of Contact and inquire
about the possibility of incorporating a new vendor option in the FOP since a core
objective of this program is to support the development of new commercial
launch opportunities.
V) If technology development and/or maturation is a component of the proposed
investigation, then a technology summary section is required, as shown in Table
B.9-2 of this program element (below). This section requires an assessment of the
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) at the start of the proposed work, and the
projected TRL at the conclusion of the proposed work. The TRL is a metric-based
assessment of the maturation of technologies.

B.9-8
 Table B.9-2. An Assessment of Technology Benefits and Advancements

Primary Technology Area (TA) Refer to NASA Space Technology

Roadmaps. Provide TA number down to
level 2 or 3.
Target Destination (The Sun, Earth, Select up to 3.
Moon, Mars, Others inside the
Solar System, Outside the Solar
System, Foundational Knowledge)
Start TRL*
Estimated End TRL*
Anticipated Benefits
* Refer to https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf
The NASA Technology Readiness Level definitions are provided at
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf. The primary technology
area refers to the technology areas defined in the 2020 NASA Technology Taxonomy
(https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home/taxonomy).
Performance characteristics (which shall be considered as requirements on the flight
system) shall include mass, power, volume, data rate(s), thermal, pointing (such as
control, stability, jitter, drift, accuracy, etc.), spatial and spectral resolution, observable
precision, retrieved parameter sensitivity and accuracy, and calibration requirements.
This section shall demonstrate that the instrumentation can meet the measurement
requirements, including factors such as retrieval results for each remote sensor, error
analysis of the information in all sensors, vertical and horizontal resolution, signal-to-
noise (S/N) calculations, and any other aspects of the instrumentation upon which the
observations depend.
The mission requirements that the science goals and investigation objectives impose on
the mission design elements, including mission design, instrument accommodation,
platform design, required launch vehicle capability, ground systems, communications
approach, and mission operations plan, shall be provided in tabular form in the mission
requirements column of the traceability matrix, and supported by narrative discussion.
Reference for management of H-LCAS investigations is found in NPR 7120.8. Typically,
management compliance of projects conducted under the NASA Sounding Rocket,
Balloon, and Airborne Programs is ensured by their respective Program Offices.
To allow advance planning, all proposal Budgets must cover complete investigations,
including payload development and construction, instrument calibration, launch
activities, and data analysis. Proposals must supply information that is needed in order
to generate an estimate of the costs associated with the operational requirements for
the proposed investigation. For example, for sounding rockets, this information is the
envisioned vehicle type and quantity, payload mass, trajectory requirements, launch
site, telemetry requirements, attitude control or pointing requirements, and any plans for
payload recovery and reuse. Balloon projects needing unique engineering and/or
technical support services and/or vehicles and/or the Wallops Arc-Second Pointing

B.9-9
System (WASP) should contact the Balloon Program Office (BPO) directly for an
estimate of the Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) cost of the desired support. It
is advisable that PIs contact SRPO or BPO before submitting proposals requesting
large amounts of resources (e.g., high number of rocket flights) to determine if the
proposed investigation is realistic.
Note: Data returned from flight investigations shall be deposited in a publicly accessible
NASA repository, such as the Solar Data Analysis Center (SDAC) or Space Physics
Data Facility (SPDF). Quick look data shall be deposited as soon as possible after it is
acquired, and all reduced data shall be deposited before the end of the investigation.
All investigations with unique requirements must obtain a letter of mission feasibility
from the relevant program office point of contact (listed in Section VIII(c) of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation). Unique requirements include, but are not limited to,
remote launch campaigns and constraints on the time/date of launch. The mission
feasibility letter must be included in the proposal submission, but it does not count
against the proposal page limit.
2.3.1 Inclusion Plan
NASA is committed to a culture of diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility. Aligned
with NASA’s core value of inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate’s Science Plan
(see Strategy 4.1 in SMD Science Plan). SMD seeks to increase the diversity of thought
and backgrounds represented across the entire SMD portfolio through a more inclusive
and accessible environment.
To advance NASA’s core value and SMD’s plans, an Inclusion Plan, not to exceed two
pages (plus additional pages for references, as necessary) immediately following the
references and citations for the S/T/M Section, is required for all proposals.
With the addition of inclusion plans, NASA seeks to improve equity in STEM by asking
proposers to consider ways to involve and empower historically underserved and
underrepresented groups in STEM.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to:
• Identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for
participants,
• Address ways to work against these barriers to create and sustain such an
environment, such as fostering communication and openness amongst the team,
involving under-represented groups in proposal activities, etc., and
• Discuss contributions the proposed investigation will make to the training and
development of a diverse and inclusive scientific workforce.
The plan should be particular to the investigation being proposed and, if it includes a
restatement of policies of the host institution, it should also provide a clear discussion of
how these policies connect to the proposed investigation.
Plans should clearly state goals for creating and sustaining a positive and inclusive
working environment, activities to achieve these goals, and metrics for measuring the
success of these activities and ways to assess whether goals have been met. Progress

B.9-10
in executing the investigation’s inclusion plan should be reported in the annual progress
report.
The assessment of the inclusion plan will not be part of the adjectival grade for the
proposal. The inclusion plan will be assessed for adequacy, appropriateness, and
completeness. For the assessment of the inclusion plan, peer reviewers will be asked
the following questions:
a. Does the inclusion plan provide adequate processes and goals for both creating
and sustaining a positive and inclusive working environment for the investigation
team? Does the inclusion plan include ways in which this inclusive working
environment will be sustained? Are the plan’s metrics of success and associated
assessment plans adequate for gauging progress? Does the inclusion plan
demonstrate awareness of systemic barriers (e.g., unconscious bias, imposter
syndrome, etc.) to creating inclusive working environments?
b. Does the inclusion plan adequately describe the contribution of the proposed
investigation to the training and development of a diverse and inclusive team?
Does the inclusion plan provide an adequate plan for achieving the identified
contribution? Is the plan likely to be successful in realizing the identified
contribution?
A resource that some proposers may find useful is the NASA MSI Exchange at
https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
Feedback will be provided to the proposers as part of the panel review summaries. The
feedback will not contribute to the adjectival ratings or selection recommendations in the
current ROSES cycle, but may in future cycles. SMD plans to invite comments
regarding this pilot process from reviewers and proposers after the review is completed.
If additional funding is needed to implement the inclusion plan, it should be stated and
included and justified in the budget.
Note that even though the assessment of the inclusion plan will not be part of the
adjectival grade for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals, funding
will be released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory inclusion plan is
approved by the NASA Program Manager of this program element.
2.3.2 Student Participation and NASA Workforce Development
The participation of graduate students is strongly encouraged, especially if the project
can be concluded within the nominal tenure of graduate training. In such cases, brief
details of the educational goals and training of the participants should be included in the
proposal. Specific factors that will be considered when evaluating a proposal’s intrinsic
merit include the degree to which it advances the readiness of participating personnel to
assume new roles in achieving NASA’s strategic objectives. In addition to the specific
case of graduate students, personnel development considerations also include post-
graduate early career and mid-career personnel exploring new areas of work.
Personnel development in the fields of spaceflight engineering and program
management are also a consideration in this evaluation of workforce development

B.9-11
3. Award Duration and Type
H-LCAS awards are expected to be three years, with a maximum of four years for
investigations that require (and justify) the extra time. H-LCAS is not expected to award
contracts as it would not be appropriate for the nature of the work solicited. Awards to
non-governmental organizations are expected to be grants if only funds are provided.
For flight investigations, grants are the funding instrument used when the proposer
procures their own ride directly from an alternative (non-NASA) launch provider.
Cooperative agreements are the funding instrument used when NASA provides or
procures the ride. In the case of cooperative agreements, NASA's contribution to the
investigation is primarily through providing or procurement of the ride, e.g., by covering
outside of the PI-managed cost launch and launch vehicle integration costs for
spaceflight launches – in general via NASA's Launch Services Program – or, specifically
for H-LCAS, via the appropriate sub-orbital program offices or SMD's rideshare
program.
ROSES proposals, including those to LCAS, do not result in separate awards to the
Principal Investigator (PI) and Co-Investigators (Co-Is) of the same proposal at different
institutions, except in those cases where a Co-Investigator is affiliated with a U.S.
Government Laboratory or NASA Center, including JPL (see Section IV(f) of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation), in which case NASA separately funds that Co-
Investigator through a direct transfer of funds. In all other cases, the PI institution is
expected to fund participating Co-I(s). No separate Co-I cost proposal will be accepted.
4. Evaluation Criteria
All proposals with be evaluated for Intrinsic Merit, Cost, and Relevance, as defined in
Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and consistent with Section V(a) of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and B.1 the Heliophysics Research
Overview. In addition, the evaluation of intrinsic merit will include the degree to which it
advances the technology readiness level of a detector or supporting technology, and the
degree to which it advances the readiness of early-career researchers or graduate
students to assume roles in advancing NASA’s strategic objectives, see Section 2.3.2.
5. Summary of Key Information
Projected program budget for $3-4M
first year of new awards
Anticipated number of new awards 3-6
pending adequate proposals of merit
Typical duration of award 3 years
Maximum duration of awards 4 years (with justification).
Due date for NOI and proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of LCAS
6 months after proposal due date.
Investigations
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of the 20 pages not including DMP.
proposal

B.9-12
Page limit for the Data Management
Plan.
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposals
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
2 pages, See Section 1.6 of B.1 the
Heliophysics Research Program Overview
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
See B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program
Overview, Table 1 and Section IV of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and
Section 3 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-HLCAS
Dan Moses
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: dan.moses@nasa.gov
B.9-13
B.10 HELIOPHYSICS FLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES STUDIES
NOTICE: Amended February 17, 2022. This amendment releases the
final text and due date for this program element, which had been listed
as "TBD". Neither Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested
for this program element. Proposals are due September 1, 2022.
The flight opportunities of the Heliophysics Division research
program have been split into three separate program elements for
improved clarity: Low Cost Access to Space (B.9/H-LCAS), Flight
Opportunities Studies (this element, B.10/H-FOS), and the remaining
SmallSats and Rideshare Opportunities are solicited in Flight
Opportunities for Research and Technology (B.11/H-FORT).
All proposers must use the standard Heliophysics template for
Current and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of
time commitment, and use of the DMP template is encouraged. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
appendix-b-roses-proposals.
1. Scope of Program
The Heliophysics Flight Opportunities Studies (H-FOS) program solicits proposals for
studies, up to twelve-months in duration, of potential Heliophysics Science mission
concepts at the pre-phase A level. Proposals to enable application of new technologies
(platform and/or instrumentation) are encouraged. NASA intends to award a range of
studies across the spectrum of heliophysics science and mission costs. However,
mission concepts appropriate for proposals to B.11 H-FORT are of particular interest.
Investigations must be responsive to the Heliophysics Division Science Goals and must
identify a potential future mission.
H-FOS is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers interested
in this program element are encouraged to read the overview of the Heliophysics
Research Program in B.1 The Heliophysics Research Program Overview, for
Heliophysics-specific requirements. Common requirements for all ROSES elements are
found in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers at
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocfo/gpc/regulations_and_guidance, and the order of
precedence for proposers is the following: B.10 (this document) takes precedence
followed by B.1, The Heliophysics Research Program Overview, followed by the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation and, finally, the Proposer’s Guidebook.
1.1 Solicited Investigations
The H-FOS program element supports studies of space flight mission concepts
addressing NASA Heliophysics Science Goals. The goal of H-FOS is to support
activities to mature future mission concepts. Note that H-FOS does not solicit
investigations that are primarily instrument or technology development, which are
commonly funded through the B.8 Heliophysics Technology and Instrument
Development for Science.

B.10-1
All proposed H-FOS investigations must identify a potential future mission opportunity
and shall link the future proposed mission to the NASA Heliophysics Science Objectives
(see B.1 The Heliophysics Research Program Overview), documented in a required
science traceability matrix. The H-FOS proposal must then demonstrate the necessity of
completing the proposed H-FOS investigation prior to submitting the future mission
proposal. Proposers to H-FOS are particularly encouraged to consider the platforms
available through the H-FORT program element to capitalize on research and
technology enabled by smaller and significantly lower cost missions.
Proposals to the H-FOS program element shall link the proposed work to the NASA
Heliophysics Science Plan as documented in the proposal traceability matrix (see
example in Table B.10-1, below) and supported by the proposal text:
A) NASA Heliophysics Science Goal(s);
B) The science questions to be answered in achieving the Science Goals;
C) The proposed investigation objective(s) required to address the science goals
(either technological or observational or both).
Table B.10-1. Example Science Traceability Matrix
A. B. C. Investigation Objective Requirements Future Mission, Top Level
Science Science Measurement Requirement Projected Requirements
Goal(s) Questions Performance
Goal # Question # Examples: Examples:

Goal # Question # Temporal XX Sec. XXX Sec. Observing strategies:

Resolution requires yaw and elevation
Etc. Etc. maneuvers
Etc.
Launch window: to meet
Precision YY% YYY% nadir and limb overlap
requirements. Window
Accuracy ZZ % ZZZ% applies day to day

The Heliophysics Science Goals have a broad scope, while a proposed objective is a
more narrowly focused part of a strategy to achieve the goal(s) (e.g. identify specific
science questions to be addressed and/or demonstrate a new mission is capable of
obtaining future measurements that may bring closure to the science questions or
goals).
The ability to determine whether a proposed investigation is successful depends on a
well-formulated articulation of the proposed science question(s) and investigation
objectives. Each proposal shall clearly define its science question(s), shall demonstrate
how the science questions are derived from the high-level science goals, and shall
show how the science question(s) lead to investigation objectives that subsequently
map into measurement, data and instrument requirements. Instructions for proposal
submission are provided in Section 2.

B.10-2
Of particular interest are proposals which are transformative, namely high (intellectual)
risk and high-impact investigations as defined below:
High Risk: The proposed investigation will test novel or significant hypotheses, for which
there are scant precedents or preliminary data or that run counter to the
existing scientific consensus.
High Impact: The proposed investigation, if successful, will have a large effect on
current thinking, methods or practice.
As part of the proposal submission process, PIs will be asked if their proposal is high
risk and high impact and invited to provide a justification in response to an NSPIRES
cover page question. Proposals that are submitted as high risk and high impact will be
evaluated accordingly.
Export Control: Export licenses are required for all foreign persons accessing flight
programs. Appendix A of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers includes links to
information regarding U.S. export regulations, export-control guidelines applicable to
proposals including foreign participation, and how to handle export-controlled material in
proposals.
2. Proposal Submission and Content
2.1 Proposal Submission
Proposal submission will not use the two-step process. Neither Notices of Intent (NOIs)
nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program element. The guidelines for
submitting proposals are provided below.
Each Principal Investigator is allowed to submit one and only one proposal to this
program element. The Principal Investigator is expected to invest a substantial portion
of his/her time, 25-30%, to the investigation. Use of team members not essential to
completion of the project is discouraged. The PI, Co-Investigators (Co-Is), and any paid
team members must each have a specific and defined task essential to the completion
of the project. Unfunded team members who are performing tasks that are essential to
completion of the project are unfunded Co-Is, not collaborators. Unfunded Co-Is must
show support for their effort, e.g., by the inclusion of a letter of support as is required for
foreign Co-Is, see Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposals will be
declared non-compliant if they are outside the scope of the H-FOS program element as
defined in previous sections, or if they fail to meet submission guidelines specified
below.
Proposals must be submitted electronically by the due date given in Tables 2 and 3 of
ROSES. An Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) from the institution of the
PI must submit the proposal. A budget and other specified information is required.
2.2 Proposal Content
Guidelines for content and formatting of proposals are specified in Section IV(b)ii and
Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Important Note: A science traceability matrix is required for every proposal. The matrix
must show the connection between the relevant science goals, the proposal objectives

B.10-3
and the measurements required to achieve those objectives. An example science
traceability matrix is provided in Table B.10-1.
Proposals must demonstrate relevance to the Heliophysics Program, including clearly
defined scientific goals appropriate for current and/or future heliophysics missions and
linkage to the proposal objectives, and that the proposed work is a necessary precursor
to solving specific scientific problems. The proposers are not expected to apply the
results of their efforts to the science problem(s) within the time period of the proposed
effort. Proposals for projects that aim to produce data products for wide use across the
heliophysics community must explain how those products would be made available to
the intended users in a timely fashion. Proposals to the H-FOS program element must
contain the following elements within the Science/Technical/Management (S/T/M)
section:
I) A traceability matrix from science goals to measurement requirements to instrument
requirements (functional and performance), and to top-level mission requirements
shall be provided in tabular form and supported by narrative discussion. Note that
the term "mission" refers to future mission(s) envisioned to address the proposed
science question and utilizing the research and/or technology development being
investigated. Projected instrument performance shall be compared to instrument
performance requirements. This matrix provides the reference points and tools
needed to track overall investigation requirements. A sample science traceability
matrix is shown in Table B.10-1.
II) A science data management plan is required for all proposed investigations. All data
obtained through H-FOS funded efforts shall be made public in a prompt manner. In
addition to the public release of data, proposals must describe the analysis,
interpretation, and dissemination in professional meetings and publications of the
results of the proposed investigation. The Data Management Plan requirements are
described in B.1, The Heliophysics Research Program Overview.
As part of an H-FOS investigation, proposals must include team members to conduct
trades, explore feasibility, and refine the mission concept and/or a statement that
arrangements have been made to partner with an appropriate NASA mission design
team. Since some science teams may lack access to the necessary mission design
capability, NASA field centers can provide study teams with access to mission design
assistance if needed. It is up to the proposing team to contact one of the field centers to
determine the cost associated with the support required. The negotiated cost is to be
included in the proposal as a separate line item. For evaluation purposes, the design
assistance cost will be considered part of the entire cost of the study. If you are at a
NASA center and using your local design center, this cost must be included along with
other costs in the main part of your budget. If you are not, please include this cost in
Section F ("Other Direct Costs") of the budget pages, line 8 or 9, labeled with the name
of the center facility, e.g., Ames Research Center - Mission Design Center". These
funds will be sent directly to the center and proposers may not charge overhead on this
portion of the award.
Design Assistance Points of Contact
Ames Research Center - Mission Design Center

B.10-4
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/engineering/divisions/missiondesign/
Ryan Vaughan, ryan.vaughan@nasa.gov, 650-604-3109.
Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops Flight Facility – Mission Planning Lab
https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/mpl/index.html
Benjamin Cervantes, benjamin.w.cervantes@nasa.gov, 757-824-1526.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Team Xc
http://jplfoundry.jpl.nasa.gov/
Keith Grogan, keith.grogan@jpl.nasa.gov, 818-354-2617.
Johnson Space Center - Partnerships Office
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/partnerships/JSC-Partnership-Gateway/
Linda Ham, linda.j.ham@nasa.gov, 281-483-6881.
Marshall Space Flight Center - Advanced Concepts Office
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/capabilities/advanced_concepts.html
Joseph Casas, joseph.casas@nasa.gov, 256-961-3029.
Kennedy Space Center – University Partnerships and Small Sat Capabilities
https://kscpartnerships.ksc.nasa.gov
Jose Nunez, jose.l.nunez@nasa.gov, 321-867-5922.
Langley’s Engineering Design Studio
https://eds.larc.nasa.gov/
David Goggin David.G.Goggin@nasa.gov, 757-864-5705.
2.3 Proposal Evaluation
Proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria defined in Appendix D of the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers and applied as specified in Section V(a) of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation. These criteria are Relevance, Merit, and Cost reasonableness.
Clarifications and additions specific to this program element are listed below.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include the scientific impact of the
proposed technology development, if successful. The review process naturally favors
proposals that are transformative. The evaluation of relevance will include evaluation of
the required traceability matrix.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of five
experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is. The PI can confidentially provide this information by
sending an email to the Point of Contact listed in Section 4 of this program element by
the proposal due date.
Proposers are expected to respond to requests to conduct reviews for up to four
proposals in the H-TIDeS, H-LCAS, H-FOS, or H-FORT programs. Much of the science
expertise lies in the PIs and Co-Is, since nearly the entire heliophysics community
proposes. In order to maintain a high caliber review process, it is important to request
that the heliophysics experts conduct reviews.

B.10-5
3. Award Duration and Type
The maximum duration of awards is one year. H-FOS is not expected to award
contracts as it would not be appropriate for the nature of the work solicited. H-FOS does
not make separate awards to the Principal Investigator (PI) and Co-Investigators (Co-Is)
of the same investigation at different institutions, except in those cases where a Co-
Investigator is affiliated with a U.S. Government Laboratory, including NASA Centers
and JPL (see Section IV(d) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation), in which case
NASA separately funds that Co-Investigator through a direct transfer of funds. In all
other cases, the PI institution is expected to fund participating Co-I(s). No separate Co-I
cost proposals will be accepted.
4. Summary of Key Information

Projected program budget for $750K

first year of new awards
Anticipated number of new awards 3-5
pending adequate proposals of merit

Maximum duration of awards 1 year

Neither Step-1 proposals nor NOIs are requested for this program element.
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
Investigations
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal.
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposals
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
6 months after proposal due date.
15 pages; see Section 2.2, and also Table 1
of ROSES-2022 and the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers.
See ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available
at support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-HFOS

B.10-6
Point of contact concerning this
program:
Roshanak Hakimzadeh
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0784
Email: hakimzadeh@nasa.gov
B.10-7
B.11 HELIOPHYSICS FLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES IN RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
NOTICE: H-FORT no longer solicits investigations to fly on balloons.
Proposers with balloon flight requirements should refer to B.9 H-
LCAS. All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template for
Current and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of
time commitment. Use of the DMP template is encouraged. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
appendix-b-roses-proposals.
1. Scope of Program
The Heliophysics Flight Opportunities in Research and Technology (H-FORT) program
seeks to fund space and sub-orbital science and science-enabling investigations that
use platforms that include SmallSats (including CubeSats) and Hosted Rideshare
Payloads, such as International Space Station (ISS)-attached payloads. The program
encourages the development of technologies that will enable investigation of
heliophysics science questions. All proposed investigations must be responsive to
NASA Heliophysics Science Goals.
H-FORT is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers
interested in this program element are encouraged to see B.1 The Heliophysics
Research Program Overview (see Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA for a link) for
Heliophysics-specific requirements and Science Goals and objectives. Common
requirements for all ROSES elements are found in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. The order of precedence is the following: B.11
(this document) followed by B.1, followed by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and
the Proposer’s Guidebook. Proposers should be familiar with all of these resources.
2. Solicited Investigations
H-FORT investigations address NASA Heliophysics Science Goals using investigator-
developed instrumentation flown on SmallSats (including CubeSats) or Hosted
Rideshares, such as payloads on the ISS. The NASA Heliophysics Science Goals have
a broad scope, while the proposed science questions are more narrowly focused.
Science investigations must demonstrate that progress can be achieved on the
proposed science questions through the investigation objectives, which may include
demonstration of a new technology. Science-enabling investigations that primarily
demonstrate a new technology must motivate the need for this technology by including
specific science questions that the new technology can address.
2.1 Characteristics of all Investigations
All proposals submitted to H-FORT must have the following characteristics.
1. The investigation objectives must address NASA Heliophysics Science Goals and
Objectives (see B.1 the Heliophysics Research Overview).
2. Space flight must be required to achieve investigation objectives.
3. Data acquired must be reduced, analyzed, and interpreted in terms of investigation
objectives.

B.11-1
4. The investigation must be completed within a time interval less than or equal to five
years.
5. The investigation cost must be consistent with the available program funding
(Section 6 of this program element).
6. The Principal Investigator (PI) must manage all the program resources (including
schedule and cost) and no reserve is held by NASA.
7. The investigation must provide a well-formulated articulation of the proposed science
question(s) and investigation objectives. Each proposal shall clearly define its
science question(s), shall demonstrate how the science questions are derived from
the NASA Heliophysics Science Goals, and shall show how the science question(s)
lead to investigation objectives that subsequently map into measurement, data and
instrument requirements. These requirements shall be demonstrated through a
Science Traceability Matrix (see example in Table 1 of this program element) and
supported by proposal text.
In addition to these characteristics, additional ones, outlined below, are required for
science or science-enabling investigations. Many successful investigations are a
combination of science and science enabling.
2.2 Science Investigations
Science investigations identify specific, compelling scientific questions that will be
addressed via spaceflight. In addition to the seven characteristics given in Section 2.1,
science investigations also have the following characteristics.
1. The investigation may develop, enhance, or mature space-flight hardware (for
instance, an instrument or sensor), or may make use of pre-existing hardware
provided by the investigator team.
2. Reduced (calibrated) science data must be archived in a NASA on-line facility
and the interpretation published in professional journals.
2.3 Science-enabling Investigations
Science-enabling investigations are primarily for technology development and
demonstration. In addition to the seven characteristics given in Section 2.1, science-
enabling investigations also have the following characteristics.
1. The investigation must develop, enhance, or mature space-flight hardware (for
instance, an instrument or sensor).
2. Specific, compelling scientific questions can be addressed with the space-flight
hardware resulting from this investigation.
3. Technical description and flight results must be published in professional journals
as part of the investigation.
2.4 Additional Considerations
H-FORT Investigations provide an important opportunity for preparing future leaders of
NASA space flight missions by involving the investigation teams in all aspects of
achieving science goals via space flight.
H-FORT encourages high risk and high impact investigations as defined below:

B.11-2
High Risk: The proposed investigation will test novel or significant hypotheses, for which
there is scant precedent or preliminary data or which run counter to the existing
scientific consensus.
High Impact: The proposed investigation, if successful, will have a large effect on
current thinking, methods or practice.
It is anticipated that some H-FORT investigations may include or be based on
instruments or technologies developed through H-TIDS or H-LCAS, missions studied
through the H-FOS program, or prior H-FORT investigations. Previous investigations
through these programs are not a prerequisite for proposing an investigation to H-
FORT. However, for new mission concepts, proposers are strongly encouraged to
submit a proposal to H-FOS to complete preformulation work prior to submitting a
proposal to H-FORT.
Export Control Laws: Export licenses are required for all foreign persons accessing
flight programs. H-FORT Principal Investigators (PIs) should contact the program office
with whom they are working (ISS, etc.) regarding PI responsibilities in this arena.
Procuring the required State Department licenses can take some time, and PIs are
urged to begin the process well before team members need access to the actual flight
hardware. More information on export control may be found in Appendix A of the NASA
Proposer’s Guidebook.
3. Potential Platforms
Each proposal must identify top level mission requirements and demonstrate that those
mission requirements can be met by one of the platforms described below. Contacts for
some of the project offices are listed at the end of each subsection below.
3.1 SmallSats and CubeSats, including CubeSat Constellations
Proposers to this program element may propose CubeSats in form factors from 1U to
27U, CubeSat constellations, as well as ESPA or ESPA Grande mounted SmallSats
over a variety of form factors. It is expected that CubeSats larger than 12U will be
capable of being dispensed from an ESPA ring.
NASA will cover all launch and launch vehicle integration costs for spaceflight launches
via NASA's Launch Services Program (LSP see Section VIII(c)vi of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation) or SMD's rideshare program (see SMD Rideshare policy and
Users Guide provided under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program
element), including the cost of an ESPA or ESPA Grande ring and integration of such,
outside of the PI-managed cost. The SMD rideshare program allows launch
opportunities as secondary payloads on ESPA or ESPA Grande rings launched with
SMD missions on SMD-purchased launch vehicles. NASA will also cover the costs of
suborbital launches using commercial suborbital reusable launch vehicle services
through the Flight Opportunities Program of NASA's Science and Technology Mission
Directorate (STMD) outside of the PI-managed cost. If so desired, the PI may 'bring
their own ride' and elect to use commercial launch providers, including Venture Class
launch vehicles, but the costs of doing so must be included within the PI-managed cost.
Information on small satellite platform technologies is available through the NASA Small
Spacecraft Virtual Institute (S3VI) or the NASA Small Spacecraft Technology Program

B.11-3
(SSTP) websites. Basic information on CubeSat testing, mechanical, electrical, etc.
standards, can be found at these sites and in the "CubeSats 101" pdf file, available
under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page of this program element. Due to the
rapidly emerging commercial SmallSat market, it is expected that a suitable spacecraft
bus, or components for the bus, will be available from a variety of sources; examples
are available in the online NASA State of the Art (SoA) report.
For missions requiring a NASA provided launch, proposers must include in an appendix
to their proposal a completed version of the Launch Accommodation Worksheet based
on the template available from the Heliophysics Division Templates Webpage. After the
evaluation of proposals, but prior to the selection decision, NASA will perform an
accommodation study of selectable rideshare investigation proposals to assess the
extent to which the proposed investigation is compatible with expected future rideshare
opportunities. A proposed investigation compatible with common launch opportunities is
more likely to be selected than one with less common or less flexible accommodation
and orbit requirements. In case the requested launch configuration is not available
immediately after the payload is completed, proposals must include a minimum 'keep
alive' funding level that would allow the payload to be stored until the requested launch
is available (see Section 5.3). Keep alive funding will be limited to at most 2 years and
shall not be included in the PI-managed cost. Excessive keep alive costs or a low
likelihood of achieving the required orbit via rideshare may be a reason for non-
selection.
Orbital missions must meet orbital debris requirements and the proposing team will
assist NASA in verifying compliance. Detailed requirements and guidelines for limiting
the generation of orbital debris and for implementing the U.S. Government Orbital
Debris Mitigation Standard Practices are provided in NASA Standard (NASA-STD)
8719.14B, Process for Limiting Orbital Debris,(which superseded NASA Safety
Standard (NSS) 1740.14), and NASA-Handbook (NHBK) 8719.14, Handbook for
Limiting Orbital Debris. This compliance will be evaluated as part of the proposal review
Note that depending upon the nature of the proposed investigation, one or more
proposal appendices must be included. These appendices must be included at the end
of the single PDF file that makes up the uploaded proposal document, but they do not
count against the science-management-technical section page limit. Proposers are
urged to be familiar with the rideshare documents (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
Rideshare Users Guide, SMD Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload Adapter Rideshare
Users Guide, and SMD Rideshare Policy) available under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page associated with this program element. For information or questions on
SmallSat and CubeSat program, please contact:
Thomas Johnson
NASA Special Projects and Small Satellite Project Office
Phone: 757-824-2560
Email: Thomas.e.johnson@nasa.gov
3.2 Hosted Rideshare Payloads
Proposers to this program element may propose payloads that will be "hosted
rideshares", meaning the payload will receive power and telemetry from an external

B.11-4
source throughout the mission. An example of a hosted rideshare would be a payload
for the ISS, but proposers are not limited to the ISS for this element. Information on
opportunities and constraints for ISS attached payloads may be found at
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/research_information.html. NASA
will provide launch services to the ISS for ISS-attached payloads via NASA’s
Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program, outside of the PI-managed cost. For
other hosted rideshare payloads, proposers must provide details of launch services
required and work with the NASA Program Scientist to ensure the launch is within the
scope of the program before submitting the proposal.
Details on ISS-attached experiments may be found in the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation, Section VIII(c)(v). Pay particular attention to the additional requirements for
proposals for the ISS that are described in that section.
For further information, please see the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, Section
VIII(c)(v). For ISS Program accommodation support please contact both of these points
of contact from the ISS Program's Research Office:

Name email
Steve Huning steven.w.huning@nasa.gov
Jennifer Scott Williams jennifer.j.scottwilliams@nasa.gov

4. H-FORT Management Process

NASA considers H-FORT investigations to be research and technology projects just like
all other ROSES investigations, not space flight projects. As such the standard NASA
mission classification scheme of class A, B, C, D does not apply to H-FORT projects.
Management requirements for research projects are fully documented in NASA
Procedural Requirements document NPR 7120.8A, but key items are listed below.
4.1 Program Management
The NASA Special Projects and Small Satellite Project Office (S3PO) at Wallops Flight
Facility (WFF) will act as the program office and provide high-level management and
technical oversight of H-FORT projects, including guidance at bi-monthly telecons and
acting as the interface between the proposing team and the launch team. The S3PO will
provide this oversight for all projects including ISS attached payloads and suborbital
programs, acting as a liaison between the project and other NASA Program Offices.
Contact Thomas Johnson with any questions related to the Program Office on H-FORT
Projects. Selected projects will be managed as research and technology projects. A bi-
monthly telecon with the Program Office should be included in the proposed project
budget.
4.2 Gate Reviews
Due to the unique requirements of these investigations, the typical yearly progress
reports are an insufficient means to measure progress at the necessary cadence. To
better meet these requirements, gate reviews that are approximately one per year (as
listed below) will be added for evaluation of sufficient progress. An annual report is still
required before funding for the following year will be released.

B.11-5
Within 6 months following selection, H-FORT projects are required to produce a Project
Plan, comprising an agreement between the PI and NASA on implementation approach,
resources, cost, reviews, schedule, and other plans. Gate reviews (as listed below) will
be conducted by an S3PO-organized review panel per the draft schedule contained in
the Project Plan. These gate reviews will act as Key Decision Points (KDPs). Decision
Authority to proceed with a project after these gate reviews lies with the Program
Scientist.
The first gate review is the Systems Requirements Review (SRR), which must be
passed in order to proceed; one of the deliverables required at SRR is the Project Plan.
Subsequent required gate reviews include a Design Review (DR) and Flight Readiness
Review (FRR), which will be conducted per the schedule agreed to in the Project Plan.
The Program Office will establish entrance and success criteria and will chair each Gate
Review. Examples of entrance and success criteria for these reviews can be found
under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element. In addition
to these required Gate Reviews, internal reviews of the project may be outlined in the
Project Plan following the guidelines in NPR 7120.8A.
4.3 Additional Programmatic Guidance
It is important that project teams present a management plan consistent with NPR
7120.8A. This NPR document is the governing document for NASA funded Research
and Technology projects at NASA Centers and other institutions for both directed and
competed work. Here are a few additional guidelines to aid in interpretation of this
document. Additional questions should be posed to the Program Officer.
• An H-FORT mission is a project and should follow the guidelines for Project
development and implementation.
• The term "project manager" should be interpreted as the Principal Investigator for
H-FORT projects. The terms "Center" and "Center Director" should be interpreted
as "PI-Institution" and "PI-Institution Director (or delegate or President or similar)"
if the project is occurring at a non-NASA Center. It is not required that other
Roles and Responsibilities given in Section 5.2 of 7120.8A have a designated
analog at the PI institution.
• The Key Decision Points required for H-FORT projects are provided in Section
4.2. The project and/or institution may set up additional reviews if desired. These
will be considered internal reviews, that is, internal to the PI Institution.
• Safety requirements for launch are specified by S3PO. An example set of safety
requirements are provided under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for
this program element (see the "FAQs for Protecting Spaceborne Assets" and the
"Space System Protection Standard"). During mission development, the project
should follow the safety requirements established by their institution.
• Independent Assessments are generally not required for H-FORT projects.
The expected Life Cycle of an H-FORT project, based on Figure 4-1 of 7120.8A, is
given below.

B.11-6

Pre-Formulation is completed
before proposal through H-FOS,
B&P funds at institution, or another
method. The product of the pre-
formulation phase is submission of
proposal to H-FORT.
Figure B.11-1. H-FORT Project Life Cycle
Authority to After selection, during The first KDP (~6 months after selection) is System
Proceed is the the formulation phase, Requirements Review. The team provides System
selection of H- the teams write a Requirement Document and Project plan to Program
FORT proposal Project Plan and office. Program office plans review, assembling a panel
develop requirements. for evaluation. Program Scientist is Decision Authority.

Two additional Gate Reviews are required during

the Implementation phase – Design Review and
Launch Readiness Review. There will be required
products from project team defined by the Program
Office. The Program Office will complete review and
DA will be Program Scientist.

Internal or Table-top reviews are defined by project

team and PI institution.

Independent assessments are generally not a

planned part of a suborbital project. They would
occur if there was a failure of a key component, for
instance. They could be at the Program or
Institutional Level and would be called “as needed”.

5 Proposal Submission Guidelines

5.1 General Requirements
Proposal submission will not use the two-step process. Neither Notices of Intent (NOIs)
nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program element. A full proposal must be
submitted electronically by the due date given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES. An
Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) from the institution of the PI must
submit the proposal.
Each Principal Investigator (PI) is allowed to submit only one proposal to this solicitation
as PI. The Principal Investigator is expected to invest a substantial portion of his/her
time to the investigation. Any team members included must have defined tasks in the
project. The PI, Co-Investigators (Co-Is), and any paid team members must each have
a specific and defined task essential to the completion of the project. Unfunded team
members who are performing tasks that are essential to completion of the project are
unfunded Co-Is, not collaborators. Unfunded Co-Is must show support for their effort,
e.g., by the inclusion of a letter of support as is required for foreign Co-Is, see Table 1 of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposals may be declared non-compliant if they
are outside the scope of the H-FORT Program as defined in previous sections, or if they
fail to meet submission guidelines.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of five
experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is. The PI can confidentially provide this information by
sending an email the Point of Contact listed in Section 6 of this program element by the
due date of the proposal. NASA does not guarantee that any of the suggested experts
will be asked to review any proposals submitted to this program element.

B.11-7
5.2 Required Science/Technical/Management Content
Proposals must be for a complete investigation, based on clearly defined objectives
either to achieve intrinsically meritorious science investigations or to enable future
science investigations by advancing technology readiness levels of space flight sensors,
detectors, instruments or supporting technologies. All investigations must link their
objectives to Heliophysics Science Goals. The investigation objectives must be
achieved through a process, including payload construction, space flight, data analysis,
data archiving, and publication of results. In addition, proposals must also provide
sufficient information on the flight performance characteristic and the mission
requirements in order to demonstrate the feasibility of the investigation.
The Science/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section of proposals is restricted to 30
pages. In addition to the content requirement provided in Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation, the S/T/M section must include the following information:
I) The proposal shall describe the investigation to be performed, the types of
measurements to be taken; the characteristics, precision, and accuracy required to
attain the investigation objectives; and the projected instrument performance. This
section shall describe the data to be returned in the course of the investigation. The
quality (e.g., resolution, coverage, pointing accuracy, measurement precision, signal
to noise ratio, background identification/removal, etc.) and quantity (bits, images,
etc.) of data that must be returned shall be described. The relationship between the
proposed data products (e.g., flight data, ancillary or calibration data, theoretical
calculations, higher order analytical or data products, laboratory data, etc.) and the
investigation objectives, as well as the expected results, shall be described. How the
science products and data obtained will be used to fulfill the scientific requirements
shall be demonstrated and supported by quantitative analysis.
II) A traceability matrix from science goals to measurement requirements to instrument
requirements (functional and performance), and to top-level mission requirements
shall be provided in tabular form and supported by narrative discussion. Projected
instrument performance shall be compared to instrument performance requirements.
This matrix provides the reference points and tools needed to track overall
investigation requirements. A sample science traceability matrix is shown in Table
B.11-1 of this program element. The science traceability matrix shall be included as
a table within the S/T/M section. This matrix must summarize how the instrument
performance requirements are a direct consequence of the proposed science
questions and investigation objectives. The science traceability matrix is a critical
tool in both the evaluation of a proposed investigation as well as the management
and implementation of a selected investigation.
Important Note: A science traceability matrix is required for every proposal. Proposals
without a science traceability matrix may be judged noncompliant and returned without
review.

B.11-8
 Table B.11-1. Example Science Traceability Matrix
A. B. C. Investigation Objective Requirements D. Mission Top Level
Science Science Measurement Requirement Projected Requirements
Goal(s) Questions Performance
Goal # Question # Examples: Examples:
Observing strategies:
Goal # Question # Temporal XX Sec. XXX Sec. requires yaw and
Resolution elevation maneuvers.
Etc. Etc.
Launch window: to meet
Etc.
nadir and limb overlap
Precision YY% YYY% requirements. Window
applies day to day.
Accuracy ZZ % ZZZ%

The top-level mission requirements that the science goals and investigation
objectives impose on the mission design elements, including mission design,
instrument accommodation, platform design, required launch vehicle capability,
ground systems, communications approach, and mission operations plan, shall be
provided in the science traceability matrix and supported by narrative discussion.
For science-enabling investigations the science traceability matrix should provide the
science goals and questions that could be addressed if the required technology is
developed.
III) If technology development and/or maturation is proposed to be completed during the
proposed investigation, then a technology summary section is required, as shown in
Table B.11-2 of this program element, below. This section requires an assessment
Table B.11-2. An Assessment of Technology Benefits and Advancements
Primary Technology Area (TA) Refer to NASA Space Technology
Roadmaps. Provide TA number down to
level 2 or 3.
Target Destination (The Sun, Earth, Select up to 3.
Moon, Mars, Others inside the Solar
System, Outside the Solar System,
Foundational Knowledge)
Start TRL*
Estimated End TRL*
Anticipated Benefits
* Refer to https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf
of the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) at the start of the proposed work, and the
projected TRL at the conclusion of the proposed work. One of the goals of the H-
FORT program is to identify promising technologies for enabling future heliophysics
missions. The TRL is a metric-based assessment of the maturation of technologies.
The NASA Technology Readiness Level definitions are provided at

B.11-9
 https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf. The primary technology
area refers to the technology areas defined in the NASA Space Technology
Roadmaps (https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/taxonomy/index.html).
IV) Proposals must provide a table specifying the expected mass/size, power, and
telemetry budgets, including reserves, the orbit characteristics (perigee, apogee,
inclination), and access-to-space methodology.
V) H-FORT proposals must include a management plan that references and/or is
consistent with NPR 7120.8A. (See Section 4.5 for additional guidance.)
VI) The schedule and budget narrative and details must include provision for a
formulation phase (up to 6 months, and up to $400K). While NASA will endeavor to
meet the targeted date for selection announcements, unanticipated budget and
programmatic issues may force changes in this dateand so this schedule does not
represent a commitment on the part of NASA.
5.3 Required Budget Content and Considerations
Awards are expected to cover all aspects of the proposed investigation, typically
including payload development and construction, instrument integration and calibration,
support for the team through launch, flight operations, publication of results, and data
collection, analysis, dissemination, and archiving. PI-managed cost and schedule must
be from program initiation to data archiving over a maximum duration of 5 years.
Proposals must supply information that is needed in order to generate an estimate of
the costs associated with the operational requirements for the proposed investigation.
There is no page limit on the budget narrative, details, or supporting documentation.
The NSPIRES budget should be given in proposal years format. The formulation phase
of the budget should be included in the first proposal year, not called out separately.
The keep-alive budget (required for SmallSats) should not be included in the NSPIRES-
based budget. In the budget narrative and details section of the proposal, provide
information on the length and required budget for the formulation phase. If a keep-alive
budget is required, provide a separate up to 2-year budget to include in the budget
narrative.
The following should be considered and/or included when developing the budget for an
H-FORT mission.
I. H-FORT takes advantage of the SMD rideshare program and LSP launches;
therefore, NASA will provide these launch services outside of the PI-managed
cost for all categories of missions. Suborbital launches using commercial
suborbital reusable launch vehicle services through the Flight Opportunities
Program of NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) are also
allowed and costs are outside of the PI-managed cost. Investigations using these
Flights of Opportunity must include a statement from the organization providing
the flight stating the proposed investigation is manifested on the relevant mission.
II. The PI may 'bring their own ride' and elect to use commercial launch providers,
including Venture Class launch vehicles, but the costs of doing so must be
included within the PI-managed cost.
III. Proposers are encouraged to be flight ready within three to four years of the
beginning of funding, and all projects must complete their prime mission within

B.11-10
 five years of the beginning of funding. It is anticipated that spacecraft bus and
launch availability will allow some programs to be flight ready more rapidly. The
prime mission includes completion of the science objectives proposed, archiving
of data and publication of results.
IV. In addition to the budget for the prime mission, the proposal must include a
'keep-alive' budget that allows for up to two years of storage from the time the
instrument is flight ready and the time a launch is available. The keep-alive
budget should be provided in the supplementary budget documentation only and
not included in the NSPIRES web page budget forms. The objective of the keep-
alive budget is to provide minimal storage requirements. Labor costs should be
minimized.
V. Science support elements, such as science radars, lidars, ionosondes, optical
sites, and the associated logistics, can be supported, when appropriate. The
funding for these support elements must be included in budgets.
VI. Cost for any environmental testing of the payload to occur prior to launch must
be included in the proposal.
VII. The PI institution is expected to fund participating Co-Investigators via
subawards, except where the Co-I is at a NASA Center or Jet Propulsion
Laboratory.
5.4 Additional Required Content
In addition to the content required in the 30-page S/T/M section of the proposal, H-
FORT proposers are also required to provide the following. The following required items
do not count against the page limit of the S/T/M section.
I) Consistent with Section 1.6 of B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program Overview
the, all proposals must contain a Data Management Plan (DMP), which will be
evaluated as part of the Intrinsic Science Merit. Proposers are strongly
encouraged to refer to the DMP template from the Heliophysics Division
Templates Webpage and Section 1.5 of The Heliophysics Research Program
Overview for the required contents. All data obtained through H- FORT funded
efforts shall be made public in a prompt manner. This includes flight data as well
as any data obtained through technology development and testing (for instance,
testing the quantum efficiency of a new detector as a function of wavelength.)
The DMP must describe the management plan of all data obtained in the
investigation described. The DMP is limited to two pages and must appear after
the S/T/M section and citations.
II) For missions requiring a NASA-provided launch, proposals must include a
completed Accommodation Worksheet (from the Heliophysics Division
Templates Webpage) and include it in the proposal PDF directly following the
data management plan.
III) The Total Budget including salary, fringe and overhead which is to be excluded
from the main proposal PDF. See Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and the FAQ on ROSES budgets including redaction and "Total"
budgets.

B.11-11
Also, optionally:
IV) Request for NASA-Provided High-End Computing (HEC) Resources, if needed.
See Section I(e) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
5.5 Award Duration and Type
H-FORT awards are expected to have a maximum duration of five years.
Awards to non-governmental organizations are expected to be grants if the proposer
would procure their own ride directly from a commercial launch provider or cooperative
agreements when NASA provides or procures the ride. In the case of cooperative
agreements, NASA's contribution to the investigation is primarily through providing or
procurement of the ride, e.g., by covering outside of the PI-managed cost launch and
launch vehicle integration costs for spaceflight launches via LSP or SMD's rideshare
program, by covering the costs of suborbital launches using commercial suborbital
reusable launch vehicle services through the Flight Opportunities Program of NASA's
Science and Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) or by providing launch services to
the ISS for ISS-attached payloads via NASA's Commercial Resupply Services (CRS)
program, outside of the PI-managed cost. NASA does not expect to award contracts
from this program element as it would not be appropriate for the nature of the work
solicited.
ROSES proposals, including those to H-FORT do not result in separate awards to the
Principal Investigator (PI) and Co-Investigators (Co-Is) of the same proposal at different
institutions, except in those cases where a Co-Investigator is affiliated with a U.S.
Government Laboratory or NASA Center, including JPL (see Section IV(f) of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation), in which case NASA separately funds that Co-
Investigator through a direct transfer of funds. In all other cases, the PI institution is
expected to fund participating Co-I(s).
6. Summary of Key Information
Projected program budget for $3M
first year of new awards
Anticipated number of new awards 1-2
pending adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards Maximum of 5 years
Neither Step-1 proposals nor NOIs are requested for this program element.
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of
8 months after proposal due date.
Investigations
Page limit for the central Science- 30 pages
Technical-Management section of the
proposal
General information and overview of See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
this solicitation

B.11-12
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposals
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
See Section 5 of this program element, Table
1 and Section IV of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation, and Section 3 of the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available
at support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-HFORT
Amy Winebarger
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (256) 961-7509
Email: amy.r.winebarger@nasa.gov
B.11-13
B.12 HELIOPHYSICS DATA ENVIRONMENT ENHANCEMENTS
NOTICE: March 11, 2022. The links to the Heliophysics Science Data
Management Policy in Sections 1 and 2 and Subsection 3.2 were
updated to https://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/heliophysics-data.
Resident Archives are no longer being offered; the data from missions
is now flowing directly to Final Archives. The Data Upgrades portion
of the HDEE will be offered this year. In addition, a special Data
Upgrade program targeted specifically at Heliophysics relevant
CubeSats datasets is offered. The Value-Added Enhancement projects
program is no longer being offered as part of HDEE but is offered in
the new ROSES element B.20, Heliophysics Tools and Methods (HTM),
aimed at furthering the use of Python in Heliophysics.
All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template for
Current and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of
time commitment. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
appendix-b-roses-proposals.
Data Management Plans are not required, as those contents are
covered by the requirement for an Archive and Dissemination Plan,
see Section 2.2.
This Program is accepting proposals at any time. See Section 3.2 for
details.
1. Scope of Program
The Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancements (HDEE) program encompasses the
data environment needs throughout Heliophysics, including Solar, Heliospheric,
Magnetosphere, and Ionosphere/Thermosphere/Mesosphere (ITM).
As part of a mission-oriented agency, the Heliophysics Research Program preferentially
seeks to fund those efforts that directly impact NASA missions or interpretation of their
data. Projects involving data from other U.S. agencies or institutions that are judged to
be highly beneficial to NASA Heliophysics (HP) research are included in the scope for
this program, if not available in a suitable form from their host’s institution.
The specific context of this call is provided by the NASA Heliophysics Science Data
Management Policy which may be found at
https://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/heliophysics-data.
HDEE is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers interested
in this program element are encouraged to see the overview of the Heliophysics
Research Program in B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program Overview for
Heliophysics-specific requirements. Common default requirements for all ROSES
proposals are found in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the Proposer’s
Guidebook but those may be superseded by instructions in a program element like this
one. The order of precedence is the following: ROSES Element B.12 (this document)

B.12-1
takes precedence followed by B.1, followed by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and
finally the Proposer’s Guidebook. Proposers should be familiar with all these resources.
2. Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancements
This call solicits proposals designed to upgrade existing Heliophysics data products to
improve the quality, utility, and accessibility of datasets relevant to Heliophysics
research. The basic building blocks of the NASA Heliophysics Data Environment
(HPDE) are well- documented, carefully calibrated, and easily used data products,
typically the result of the reduction of numbers from spacecraft telemetry to the physical
quantities that enter the equations we use to model space plasmas. This call solicits
proposals (Data Upgrades) to upgrade datasets that are of continuing value but that do
not currently fit easily into the HPDE. Resident Archives will no longer be supported;
these are no longer needed as the data from current missions is flowing directly to Final
Archives.
The NASA Heliophysics Science Data Management Policy gives further information
about the HPDE, where the data will be preserved and served for the long-term. The
Final Archive for Space Physics data is the NASA Space Physics Data Facility (SPDF)
while Solar data are handled by NASA’s Solar Data Analysis Center (SDAC).
Most HP data products are now described in terms of the Space Physics Archive
Search and Extract (SPASE) Data Model (see http://www.spase-group.org/ for
information on SPASE and http://heliophysicsdata.gsfc.nasa.gov for a "public face" to
the registry); use of SPASE is now a requirement for this call. Investigators undertaking
data projects under this call should determine what product(s) will require SPASE
descriptions and, as needed, contact the SPASE group via
https://hpde.gsfc.nasa.gov/spase_metadata.html for providing SPASE descriptions.
A major goal of Data Upgrade proposals will be to put data in uniform, sustainable
formats. For solar physics data, this should be Flexible Image Transport System (FITS),
and for space physics data Common Data Format (CDF) is the format of choice. Some
Ionosphere, Thermosphere, Mesosphere (ITM) data are closely allied to Earth
Sciences, and thus, NetCDF is appropriate.
Possible upgrades include, translating datasets into more readily accessible formats,
improving the data quality, and improving metadata. Note that the term "dataset" as
used here can apply only to data products derived directly from HP research relevant
instruments, this includes so called “Level 4” data products that often present the most
useful datasets from a mission but that were not part of the original mission’s data
delivery obligation. Excluded are higher-level datasets derived from the results of
research analyses, data assimilation, and modeling; delivery of those data products are
covered by the Archive and Dissemination Plans of the projects that produced them.
2.1 Programmatic Considerations
Proposals must discuss the relationship of the proposed effort to the present, as well as
anticipated, state of knowledge in the field, to the relevant datasets that should be
available from any related planned missions, and to any related NASA community
research efforts.

B.12-2
This call includes two types of Data Upgrade programs – Open Data Upgrade (ODU)
and Special Data Upgrade (SDU), both of which will accept submissions throughout the
year (no deadline). The rules for open proposal submissions are outlined in B.1 and in
Section 3.2.
Submitting a proposal to this program element implies that if an award is made, a copy
of any data product will be made public, including via one of the two discipline archives -
The Space Physics Data Facility (SPDF), or the Solar Data Analysis Center (SDAC).
Proposers to this program element are not required to provide a data management plan.
Instead, that is superseded by the requirement for the Archive and Dissemination Plan,
see Section 2.2.
2.2 Data Upgrades Proposals
Funding is intended to support small, short-term (typically one year) awards to improve
the quality, utility, and accessibility of datasets relevant to Heliophysics research.
Priority will be given to those proposals from data providers of NASA-sponsored
datasets, but other data relevant to HP research will be considered.
A proposal for a Data Upgrade must include explicit subheadings as given in each of
the bulleted points below, in the order below, with a discussion of each topic indicated
(explicitly note if not applicable):
• Products to be Produced: A clear description of the products to be produced,
including the time span covered; the physical quantities to be included with their
temporal and/or spatial resolution; and the format(s), coordinate system(s), and
processing level(s) (e.g., calibrated in physical units or not, the former being far
preferable).
• Scientific Utility: An argument for why the datasets involved were scientifically
useful in the past and for how the proposed upgrade will make them more useful
in the future. Specific research projects should be mentioned, along with an
assessment of whether these will bring qualitatively new insights. This should be
supported by, e.g., refereed publications or other citations and uses by people
outside the PI team. A justification that merely stated: "This work supports long-
term data projects" without specific examples would be inadequate. A better
justification might be: "The following three groups are awaiting this data product to
be able to do these cutting-edge scientific studies …"
• Method of Production: How the upgrade will be produced, including a presentation
of relevant algorithms.
• Demonstration of Improvement: A demonstration that the proposed upgrade
represents a significant improvement in the quality and/or utility of the data, its
format, and/or its accessibility. “Before and after” graphs are especially helpful,
and the validation of techniques and results (including, e.g., error bars) must be
discussed.
• Current Data Status: The current status of the data and a demonstration that the
data can still be retrieved from their current storage medium. Examples of the
improved product are expected; if these are not available, specific arguments that
these can be produced will be needed.

B.12-3
 • Data Volume: A statement of the current data volume, the expected data volume
after processing, and the fraction of the data expected to be recovered.
• Metadata Plan: A plan for providing required metadata and ancillary data and
descriptions needed for independent scientific usability. A plan for providing
SPASE descriptions of products, usually in conjunction the SPASE group or a
NASA HP data center (SPDF or SDAC), should be included.
• Archive and Dissemination Plan: A clear discussion of how the resource will be
placed in an HP Data Archive for general access or otherwise made easily
available, and a description of the documentation to be provided of the dataset as
required for scientific use.
• Need for Resources: A discussion that demonstrates that the requested resources
are necessary and sufficient for success in achieving the proposed upgrade. A
good resource discussion will include: how many hours of what specific level of
support person are required and why; what can or cannot be automated and why;
and what level of science support is needed in terms of FTEs.
The discussion of each of these points may be brief, but each point must be clearly
addressed.
2.2.1 Open Data Upgrade Proposals
The ODU program is ongoing and is intended to be solicited every year. It is targeted
specifically for data upgrades for data quality upgrades to existing HPDE holdings, and
for delivery of higher-level data products that were not part of a mission’s original data
management plan.
• Must address the subheadings as given in Section 2.2
• Are open to all HP research relevant satellite instrument datasets
• Currently non-public datasets are eligible if the end-product of the project
becomes an openly accessible dataset.
• Excludes data from currently operating NASA missions.
2.2.2 Special Data Upgrade Proposals
The SDU program is time-limited and will be used to target specific HP research data
that has not received sufficient support in the past that could enable these data to be
brought up to the quality required for hosting in the HPDE. This call for proposals seeks
SDU proposals for HP research relevant CubeSat data; this would typically involve
NASA or NSF sponsored research CubeSats.
• Must address the subheadings as given in Section 2.2
• Open to all HP research relevant CubeSat instrument datasets
• Includes data from past CubeSat missions and operating CubeSat missions
• The CubeSat mission needs to have demonstrated that it collected scientifically
useful longer-term datasets (months not days).

B.12-4
3. Proposal Preparation and Submission
3.1 General Considerations
Within the proposing team, the PI (or Science PI), and Co-Investigators (Co-Is) must
each have specific and defined tasks in the project, and the tasks must be essential to
the completion of the project. Unfunded team members who are performing tasks that
are essential to completion of the project are unfunded Co-Is and must show outside
support for their effort. Proposals may be declared noncompliant based if they are
outside the scope of the HDEE program (see Section 1 above) or if they fail to meet
submission guidelines specified below.
3.2 Proposal Submission and Content
Proposals to this program element may be submitted at any time without any
preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1 proposal. Certain restrictions
related to duplicate proposals and resubmissions are described below. The NSPIRES
page for this program element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that is simply the
end date for the current HDEE, after which proposals may be submitted to the next
HDEE. Programs such as this one with No Due Date (NoDD) will evaluate proposals
throughout the year with a roughly quarterly cadence, see Section 4.
While proposals can be submitted at any time, proposals will be evaluated at an
approximate quarterly cadence and will cover the period up to 11:59 pm Eastern time
on March 29, 2023. Proposals after that date must be submitted to the HDEE program
element in ROSES-2023.
Specifically, for the rolling submissions in this program element:
o A PI may at most submit two distinct (different) proposals in any given calendar
year.
o A PI may resubmit the same or slightly modified proposal at most once in any
given calendar year.
o A proposal with more than 50% new content is counted as a new proposal and
not a resubmitted proposal.
A (maximum) of 6 pages is allowed for the Science/Technical/Management Section of
all proposals to this program element. The proposal must be submitted via NSPIRES or
Grants.gov by the organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). A
budget and other specified information is required.
The process for preparation and submission of the 6-page proposals is the same as that
for any other ROSES proposal. Guidelines for content and formatting proposals are
specified in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation. Proposals must adhere to formatting requirements (e.g., margins, font
sizes, line spacing).
Proposals must include the following within the Scientific/Technical/ Management
section: clear descriptions of (1) specific Heliophysics scientific problems that could be
addressed with the upgraded data in conjunction with other HP resources, (2) the
importance of the problems, and (3) the details of the technical approach to providing
the promised data. Proposals must be clear on how data will be made to conform to the

B.12-5
Heliophysics Data Policy. The answers to the above points should arise naturally in
following the required format in Section 2.2.
4. Evaluation
Compliant proposals will be evaluated according to the three criteria as defined in the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers: intrinsic scientific and technical merit, relevance (to
this program element), and cost reasonableness, as clarified below.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include:
• Compelling nature and scientific priority of science goals enabled by the Data
Upgrade, including the importance of the problem within the broad field of
Heliophysics; the unique value of the investigation to enable scientific progress in
the context of current understanding in the field, and the importance of carrying out
the Upgrade now.
• Appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology, including the appropriateness
of the selected algorithms for completing the investigation and the feasibility of the
methodology for ensuring success.
Based primarily on these two factors within merit, the evaluation will consider the overall
potential science impact and probable success of the investigation.
Relevance will be judged by whether the proposal addresses the goals and objectives
of a Data Upgrade.
Cost reasonableness will include assessing the amount of work to be accomplished
versus the amount of time proposed.
Approximate dates for the evaluations will be May 2022, August 2022, November 2022,
February 2023, and May 2023.
5. Available Funds
It is anticipated that approximately $750K will be made available to support ~ 10 new
selections for 1-year duration ODU and SDU each year, with a median award value of
$75K. Smaller efforts should request lower funds, while larger efforts need to
specifically justify their larger requests. Investigations in the range of $50K – $100K are
anticipated. Proposals are expected to be for one year, with a second year possible with
strong justification.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for one- $750K, see Section 5
year awards
Number of new awards pending ~8-12, see Section 5
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 2 years, see Section 5
Due date for proposals Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 pm Eastern time on March 29, 2023
Planning date for start of ~ 4 months after proposal submission.
investigation Evaluation quarterly, see Section 4.

B.12-6
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program element.
6 pages.
This program is relevant to the Heliophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See Section 2.2 of this program element, Table
1 of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and,
finally, Section 3 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-HDEE
Reinhard Friedel,
Telephone: (202) 281-6360
Email: reinhard.h.friedel@nasa.gov
and
D. Aaron Roberts
Telephone: (301) 286-5606
Email: aaron.roberts@nasa.gov
B.12-7
B.13 HELIOPHYSICS U.S. PARTICIPATING INVESTIGATOR
U U

NOTICE: This program element will not be competed in ROSES this

year. NASA anticipates that this program will be solicited again in
ROSES-2024.
1. U Scope of Program
The Heliophysics U.S. Participating Investigator (H-USPI) program element solicits
potential Heliophysics investigations in which investigators participate as a Co-
Investigator (Co-I) for an instrument, experiment, or technology demonstration that is
being built and flown by a sponsor agency other than NASA. A proposed investigation
as an H-USPI on a non-NASA mission or instrument may take any form that clearly and
demonstrably enhances the scientific output of the mission, benefits the U.S. scientific
community, and enables the U.S. heliophysics science community access to a highly
valued scientific data set.
Heliophysics USPI is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and
proposers interested in this program element are encouraged to B.1 The Heliophysics
Research Program overview, for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Common
requirements for all ROSES elements are found in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers .
32TU U32T

1.1 Solicited Investigations

Investigations are solicited from Co-Investigators (Co-I) on non-NASA space missions,
that is for Co-Is for an instrument, experiment, or technology demonstration that is being
built and flown by a sponsor agency other than NASA. The Co-I role can include, but is
not limited to, instrument design, modeling and simulation of the instrument’s operation
and measurement performance, calibration of the instrument, scientific analysis and/or
research of the data returned, and/or development of innovative data analysis
techniques. The Co-I role can also include participation in science team activities, such
as mission planning, mission operations, data processing, data analysis, and data
archiving.
Regardless of the nature of the U.S. Participating Investigator role, an investigation
proposed under this category must be for a science or technology investigation and
must include some meaningful data analysis component, archiving of the complete data
set, and the publication of science results in the peer reviewed literature. All aspects of
the investigation through publication must be within the proposed cost.
The proposed investigations can vary in duration, to include just the prime science
mission phase or to begin at the post-confirmation development phase (e.g., for
calibration analysis) through the prime mission operational phase, depending on the
science requirements of the investigation. All investigations shall include adequate time
for data analysis and archiving following the conclusion of the prime mission phase.
2. Point of Contact Concerning this Program
Simon Plunkett
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate

B.13-1
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-2034
Email: simon.p.plunkett@nasa.gov
32T

B.13-2
B.14 HELIOPHYSICS - EARLY CAREER INVESTIGATOR PROGRAM
U

NOTICE: All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template

for Current and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of
time commitment. Use of the DMP template is encouraged, see
Section 2.4.2. The Science/Technical/Management section of Step-2
proposals is limited to 10 pages.
1. U Scope of Program
The Early Career Investigator Program (ECIP) in Heliophysics is designed to support
outstanding scientific research and career development of scientists at the early stage
of their professional careers. The program aims to encourage innovative research
initiatives and cultivate diverse scientific leadership in Heliophysics. This program is
designed to foster the empowerment, inspiration, and education of the next generation
of space researchers, as part of the DRIVE (Diversify, Realize, Integrate, Venture,
Educate) initiative put forward as a high priority recommendation of the 2013 Solar and
Space Physics Decadal Survey.
ECIP is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers interested
in this program element are encouraged to read B.1, The Heliophysics Research
Program Overview, for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Common requirements for
all ROSES elements and proposals are found in this year's ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the order of precedence for
proposers is the following: This document takes precedence followed by B.1, The
Heliophysics Research Program Overview, followed by the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and, finally, the Proposer’s Guidebook. Proposers should be familiar with all
of these resources.
1.1 Solicited Investigations
U

Science investigations are solicited with Heliophysics ECIP. These may include data
analysis and interpretation of current or historical NASA-spacecraft observations or
non-NASA observations. Investigations may include theory, numerical simulation, or
modeling, but these must be substantiated with and guided by data. Investigations
should address the Heliophysics overarching goal or a specific objective as described
in B.1. System Science and interdisciplinary proposals are welcome. Innovative ideas
and techniques are encouraged.
1.2 Data Usage and Availability
U

All data, whether of NASA or non-NASA origin, must be available from the Solar Data
Analysis Center (SDAC), Space Physics Data Facility (SPDF), or at no cost from an
equivalent, publicly accessible archive (with a link to archive included in the proposal)
30 days prior to the Step-2 (full-proposal) deadline. Proposals for projects that aim to
produce (e.g., combined non-NASA and NASA-) data products must explain how those
products would be made publicly available in the a data management plan, see
Section 2.4.2.
1.3 Eligibility
U

An ECIP proposal PI (or Science PI) and any early career Co-Is must have a Ph.D.

B.14-1
conferral date on or after January 1, 2012 (see also second bullet below).
To be eligible for an ECIP award, proposed PIs must meet the following requirements
at the time of initially receiving funding of the award:
1. Be employed at a U.S. institution where the employing institution assumes
the responsibility of submitting the proposal with the individual as the
proposed PI or Science PI. Research faculty are eligible.
2. Despite being more than ten years beyond the receipt of their Ph.D. degrees,
individuals who have interrupted their careers for reasons such as family
leave, military service or serious health problems may also be eligible. These
applicants should make a written request to the NASA point of contact (Section
5) prior to the Step-1 due date to propose. NASA will provide a written
response within three weeks.
3. Not hold or have held academic tenure (or equivalent at a non-academic
institution).
4. Not be a current or former recipient of a Presidential Early Career Award
for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE).
5. Not be a current or former recipient of an ECIP award or PI or Science PI
of any other current science or technology ROSES award (other than
FINESST).
2. U Submission and Evaluation Process
2.1 General Considerations
U

Proposals submitted to this program element must be led by a single, eligible

investigator (see Section 1.3 for eligibility) serving as the Principal Investigator (PI).
Serving as a Science PI is permissible for cases where the institution does not allow
research or un-tenured faculty to lead proposals. No Co-Principal Investigators are
permitted. Only up to 2 early career Co-Investigators may be included on the proposal
team. Students and postdoctoral fellows may participate as supported team members.
A mentor may be named as a collaborator.
An early career researcher may participate in one and only one proposal to this program
element as a PI or Co- Investigator. In that proposal, the Principal Investigator/ Science
PI must invest a substantial portion of his/her time, at least 50%, to the investigation.
Each team member must have a specific and defined task essential to completion of the
project. Use of collaborators, other than a mentor, is not allowed.
Proposals may be declared noncompliant based on either the Step-1 or Step-2 proposal
if they are outside the scope of the H-ECIP program (Section 1) or if they fail to meet
submission guidelines specified below. If questions are received a document will be
posted on the NSPIRES page for this program element with anonymized questions
answered.
2.2 Two-Step Submission Process
U

To provide adequate notice to potential reviewers, this program uses a two-step

proposal submission process. The overall description of a two-step process can be
found in Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.

B.14-2
In the two-step process a Step-1 proposal is required. Potential reviewers are solicited
based on the Step-1 proposal. The investigators may not be changed between the
Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, unless prior approval is obtained from the Program Officer
of the element. The title and broad science goals of the proposal may not be changed
such that they would significantly affect the scientific or technical expertise required to
properly evaluate a proposal. Changes in a proposal that impact the review will result in
a proposal being declared non-compliant.
2.3 Step-1 Proposals
U

A Step-1 proposal is required and must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 due
date (see Table 2 and Table 3 of ROSES). The Step-1 proposal must be submitted by
32TU U32T 32T 32T

the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). No budget or other elements are

required. Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a full
proposal.
Step-1 proposals will be checked for compliance, but they will not be evaluated. The
expected format is described below. Submission of the Step-1 proposal does not
obligate the offerors to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal later.
2.3.1 Step-1 Proposal Content
The Step-1 proposal is restricted to the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on
the NSPIRES web interface cover pages. References and any other supporting material
are not required, but, if included, must fit within the limit.
The Step-1 proposals must include the following:
• The science goals and objectives to be addressed by the proposal;
• A brief statement of the methodology to be used, including what data, models,
and analysis will be used for completing the investigation;
• A brief statement of the relevance of the problem to the Heliophysics overarching
goal or specific objectives as described in B.1
No PDF attachment is required or permitted for Step-1 proposal submission. Proposers
will be invited by NSPIRES when they are able to submit their Step-2 proposals.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of
five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is. This information can be supplied in response to NSPIRES
cover page questions at the time of submission of the Step-1 proposal.
2.4 Step-2 Proposals
A Step-2 (full) proposal must be submitted electronically by the Step-2 due date (see
Table 2 and Table 3 of ROSES). The Step-2 proposal must be submitted via NSPIRES
32T 32T 32T 32T

or Grants.gov by the organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). A

budget and other specified information is required.
Because potential reviewers are solicited based on the Step-1 proposal, the proposal
team members may not be changed between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, unless
prior approval is obtained from the Program Officer of the element. The title and broad
science goals of the proposal may not be changed such that they would significantly

B.14-3
affect the scientific or technical expertise required to properly evaluate a proposal.
Changes in a Step-2 proposal that impact the review will result in a proposal being
declared non-compliant.
Proposers must have submitted a Step-1 proposal to be eligible to submit a Step-2
proposal. Proposers that received a noncompliant letter are not eligible to submit a
Step-2 proposal.
2.4.1 Step-2 Proposal Content
The process for preparation and submission of the Step-2 (full) proposals is the same
as that for any other ROSES proposal. Guidelines for content and formatting Step-2 full
proposals are specified in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation. Proposals must adhere to formatting requirements (e.g.,
margins, font sizes, line spacing). Proposers should list evidence of scientific leadership
in their CV (see evaluation criteria in Section 2.4.3).
The Scientific/Technical/Management section of Step-2 proposals are limited to ten (10)
pages and must include the following sections with the preferred order:
• The science objectives and perceived impact of the proposed work to the state of
knowledge in the field; references to existing work in the field should be limited to
that which is needed to justify the value of the science proposed;
• The data and methodology to be employed in conducting the proposed research;
the proposal must demonstrate (1) that the data are appropriate to address the
science objectives, and (2) that the methodology is both appropriate and feasible
to make substantial progress on the science objectives;
• The relevance of the proposed work to the Heliophysics overarching goal or
specific objectives as described in B.1;
• A general plan of work, the management structure for the proposal personnel,
and a description of the expected contribution to the proposed effort by the PI
and each person as identified in the proposal, whether or not they derive support
from the proposed budget. Postdoctoral fellows and students need not be
named.
Historically, proposals that address a single well-focused compelling science objective
with a limited set of specific science questions have been more successful at
constructing methodologies that are demonstrably feasible and appropriate, as
compared with those that propose to address a large number of science questions or
that are directed at an overly-broad science topic.
2.4.2 Data Management Plan
To broaden access to the results of NASA-funded research, proposals submitted to
ECIP must include a data management plan (DMP). If the proposed work would not
produce data suitable for deposition in a public archive, then that should be explicitly
justified in the proposal. Proposals to ECIP requiring a DMP must place it in a special
section of the proposal, not to exceed two pages in length, entitled "Data Management
Plan" immediately following the references and citations for the S/T/M portion of the
proposal.
The DMP must cover any data needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-

B.14-4
reviewed publications, particularly data underlying figures, maps, and tables. It also
needs to cover any other data and software that would enable future research or the
replication/reproduction of published results. Proposers are strongly encouraged to use
the HPD DMP template, that may be downloaded as a Word document, from the SARA
web page at: https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
32T

appendix-b-roses-proposals . 32T

Additional information can be found in section 1.5 of ROSES Element B.1.

2.4.3 Step-2 Evaluation Criteria
Compliant proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria defined in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers and applied as specified in Section V(a) of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation. These criteria are Relevance, Merit, and Cost. Clarifications
and additions specific to this program element are listed below.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include the following:
• Compelling nature and scientific priority of the proposed investigation's science
goals and objectives, including the importance of the problem within the broad
field of Heliophysics; the unique value of the investigation to make scientific
progress in the context of current understanding in the field, and the importance
of carrying out the investigation now.
• Appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology, including the
appropriateness of the selected data, models, and analysis for completing the
investigation and the feasibility of the methodology for ensuring scientific
success.
Based on these two factors, the evaluation will consider the overall potential science
impact and probable success of the investigation.
Relevance to and priority within the ECIP program will be assessed based on criteria
discussed in Section 1, and will include an assessment of scientific leadership and
vision evidenced by one or more of the following:
• Extra activities such as, but not limited to, education of graduate students,
involvement in policy-related committees, conference or workshop organization,
professional society activities, journal reviewing, journal editorship, participation
in public outreach (listed in PI or Science PI CV);
• Awards received; invited presentations (listed in PI or Science PI CV);
• The extent to which the scientific and/or technical innovation of the proposed
research might positively impact the direction and progress in relevant scientific
fields of research.
Each proposal must demonstrate that the investigation is relevant and of high priority.
The evaluation of cost reasonableness includes the amount of work to be accomplished
versus the amount of time proposed. Open-ended proposals or those with a large
number of science questions to be addressed typically do not fare well in this
evaluation.

B.14-5
3. Available Funds
Proposals to the ECIP are intended to be openly solicited approximately every two
years. The anticipated average award is $125- $175 per year for a period of up to
four years, subject to satisfactory progress and availability of funds.
4. Award Types
The Heliophysics ECIP program will primarily award funds through three vehicles: (1)
grants, (2) interagency transfers, and (3) awards to NASA centers. This call will not
award contracts, as it is not appropriate for the nature of the work.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget ~ $1.5M
for new awards
Number of investigator awards ~ 8-12 awards
pending adequate proposals of
merit
Maximum duration of awards 4 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for invited Step-2
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
proposals
Planning date for start of
6 months after Step-2 proposal due date
investigation
Page limit for the central 10 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Science/Technical/Management Summary of Solicitation and the NASA 32T

section of proposal Guidebook for Proposers.

Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
This program is relevant to the Heliophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4
32T 32T

submission of proposals of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and

Submission medium
Web site for submission of Step-1
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
32T 32T

and Step-2 proposal via NSPIRES available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or

32T 32T

(202) 479-9376)
Web site for submission of Step-1 http://grants.gov (help desk available at
32T 32T

and Step-2 proposal via Grants.gov support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)

32T 32T

B.14-6
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
NNH22ZDA001N-ECIP
Katya Verner
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-358-1213
Email: Ekaterina.M.Verner@nasa.gov
32T 32T

B.14-7
B.15 HELIOPHYSICS INNOVATION IN TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
U

NOTICE: Proposals to this program element may be submitted at any

time without any preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent. See
Section 2.2. The Science/Technical/Management section of proposals
is limited to 10 pages. All proposers must use the standard
Heliophysics template for Current and Pending Support for the PI and
all Co-Is, regardless of time commitment. Use of the DMP template is
encouraged.
1. U Scope of Program
This Heliophysics Innovation in Technology and Science (HITS) Program element
solicits proposals that advance the goals and objectives of NASA Heliophysics by
conducting outstanding, innovative or expeditious research that can be accomplished in
one year.
HITS is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers interested
in this program element should read B.1, the Heliophysics Research Program Overview
for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Common requirements for all ROSES elements
and proposals are found in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the Proposer's
Guidebook and the order of precedence for proposers is the following: ROSES Element
B.15 (this document) takes precedence followed by B.1, The Heliophysics Research
Program Overview, followed by the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and, finally,
the 2022 NASA Proposer’s Guidebook . Proposers should be familiar with all of these
32TU U32T

resources.
1.1 Solicited Investigations
Science and/or Technological Investigations are solicited with this HITS program. These
must be important and highly relevant research topics and opportunities that fit within
one of the following types of activities:
• Outstanding, innovative and novel ideas to advance Heliophysics research that can
be accomplished in one year or the concept can be developed to the point that it is
appropriate to be submitted to another ROSES element in a subsequent year. The
Heliophysics Division anticipates that proposals will offer the possibility for major
scientific breakthroughs and/or new approaches to gaining knowledge and
understanding of the Heliophysics system.
• Expeditious research activity to take advantage of a target of opportunity due to an
unforeseen occasion in the Heliophysics system. Research proposals should have
greater urgency for action involving unanticipated or unpredictable events that fall
outside the norm. The proposal must include clear statements as to why the
proposed research is of an urgent nature.
All proposals must include an explanation of (1) why the proposed research is of high
significance and likely to have a long-lasting impact, and (2) why this ROSES program
element is the only feasible mechanism to request NASA support for the proposed
work.
The specific context of this call is guided by the Science Mission Directorate's strategy
document entitled Explore Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence with
32T 32T

B.15-1
emphasis on high intellectual risk/high impact research, and that may also include
science and technology innovation that capitalizes on the rapid evolution of commercial
capabilities or pursuit of public-private partnerships in research.
1.2 Data Usage and Availability
All data, whether of NASA or non-NASA origin, must be available from NASA's Solar
Data Analysis Center ( SDAC ), Space Physics Data Facility ( SPDF ), or at no cost from
32T 32T 32T 32T

an equivalent, publicly accessible archive (with a link to the archive included in the
proposal) 30 days prior to the submission date of the proposal. Proposals for projects
that aim to produce (e.g., combined non-NASA and NASA) data products must explain
how those products would be made publicly available in the data management plan
(DMP) see Section 1.4 below and Section 1.6 of B.1, The Heliophysics Research
Program Overview.
1.3 Limitations in Scope
Proposals outside the scope of HITS include the following:
• Proposals for the same or essentially the same work submitted concurrently to other
program elements in Appendix B or F, as specified in B.1 Section 1.4. The proposal
submission date for HITS is the date that will be used to compare against proposals
submitted to other programs in case of multiple submissions and duplications as
specified in Section 1.4 of B.1;
• Work for which the proposing organization (or investigators) are already funded by
NASA. Proposals involving currently funded investigators must include in the page
limited scientific/technical/management section of the proposal a description of how
the new proposed effort is different and not duplicative of currently supported efforts
by the proposing team.
• Proposals to this program element may not be resubmitted until one year after it was
last submitted, see Section 2.1.
Any proposal that violates one or more of these requirements will be considered as
noncompliant and will be declined without further review.
1.4 Current and Pending Support and Data Management Plans
All proposals must use the standard Heliophysics template for Current and Pending
Support for PIs and all Co-Is, regardless of time commitment. PDF, MS Excel and MS
Word templates of this table and instructions can be found at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-
32T

proposals .
32T

To broaden access to the results of NASA-funded research, proposals submitted to

ECIP must include a data management plan (DMP), see Section 1.6 of B.1, The
Heliophysics Research Program Overview. The DMP must be placed in a special
section not to exceed two pages in length, entitled "Data Management Plan"
immediately following the references and citations for the S/T/M portion of the proposal.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to use the HPD DMP template, that may be
downloaded as a Word document, from the SARA web page at:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-
32T

proposals .
32T

B.15-2
2. Submission and Evaluation Guidelines
2.1 General Considerations
Each Principal Investigator (PI) may submit one and only one proposal to this program
element per year. The PI, Co-Investigators (Co-Is), and any paid team members must
each have a specific and defined task essential to the completion of the project.
Unfunded team members who are performing tasks that are essential to completion of
the project are unfunded Co-Is, not collaborators. Unfunded Co-Is must show support
for their effort, e.g., by the inclusion of a letter of support as is required for foreign Co-Is,
see Table 1 of ROSES.
Proposals may be declared noncompliant if they are outside the scope of the HITS
program (see Section 1 above) or if they fail to meet submission guidelines specified
below (Section 2.2-2.4).
2.2 Rolling Submissions – No Fixed Due Date
Proposals to this program element may be submitted at any time without any
preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1 proposal. Certain restrictions
related to duplicate proposals and resubmissions are described in Section 1.3. The
NSPIRES page for this program element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that is
simply the end date for the current ROSES, after which proposals may be submitted to
the program element with the same name in the next ROSES. Proposals maybe
submitted at any time but will be reviewed quarterly.
Proposals must be submitted electronically via NSPIRES or Grants.gov by the
organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). A budget and other
specified information is required.
2.3 Proposal Content
The process for preparation and submission of the proposals is the same as that for any
other ROSES proposal. Guidelines for content and formatting of proposals are specified
in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Proposals must adhere to formatting requirements (e.g., margins, font sizes, line
spacing).
The Scientific/Technical/Management section of proposals are limited to ten (10) pages
and must include the following sections with the preferred order:
• The science and/or technology objectives, and perceived impact of the proposed
work to the state of knowledge in the field; references to existing work in the field
should be limited to that which is needed to justify the value of the science proposed;
• The data and/or methodology to be employed in conducting the proposed research;
the proposal must demonstrate (1) that the data and/or tools/techniques are
appropriate to address the science and/or technology objectives, and (2) that the
methodology is both appropriate and feasible to make substantial progress on the
science and/or technology objectives;
• The relevance of the proposed work to the HITS program, as described in Section 1
and to Heliophysics overarching goal as described in B.1; the urgency of the
proposal within Heliophysics (if applicable);

B.15-3
• A general plan of work, the management structure for the proposal personnel, and a
description of the expected contribution to the proposed effort by the PI and each
person as identified in the proposal, whether or not they derive support from the
proposed budget. Postdoctoral fellows and students need not be named.
Budget requests should be commensurate with the nature of the work to be conducted
and include sufficient funding for processing of the data and its public distribution, as
well as minimal data analysis to achieve the core, near-term objectives. Full exploitation
of a successfully acquired data and/or tools/methods set can be included in future
competitive ROSES disciplinary program elements and should not be requested here.
In addition, a Current and Pending Support statement must be included for all Co-Is,
regardless of committed time to the project.
2.4 Evaluation Criteria
Compliant proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria as defined in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers and as specified in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
Section V(a). These criteria are Relevance, Merit, and Cost reasonableness.
Clarifications and additions specific to this program element are listed below.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include the following:
• Compelling nature and scientific and/or technology priority of the proposed
investigation's science goals and objectives, including the importance of the problem
within the broad field of Heliophysics; the unique value of the investigation to make
scientific progress in the context of current understanding in the field, and the
importance of carrying out the investigation now.
• Appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology, including the appropriateness of
the selected data, models, and analysis for completing the investigation and the
feasibility of the methodology for ensuring scientific success.
Based on these two factors, the evaluation will consider the overall potential science
impact and probable success of the investigation.
Relevance to and priority within the HITS program will be assessed based on the
description in Section 1. Each proposal must demonstrate that the investigation is
relevant and of high priority.
The evaluation of cost reasonableness includes the amount of work to be accomplished
versus the amount of time proposed.
3. Available Funds
No specific budget is identified for this program element; selected proposals will use
unawarded prior year funding from other ROSES program elements. The number of
proposals selected will be dependent on the availability of funds, as well as the number
and quality of proposals submitted. It is anticipated that all studies will be conducted in

B.15-4
one year at a cost ranging from modest (~$75) to moderate (~$200K). Any continuation
funding must be sought from other ROSES elements.
4. Award Types
The HITS program will award funds through three vehicles: (1) grants, (2) interagency
transfers, and (3) awards to NASA Centers.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first year No dedicated budget; see Section 3.
of new awards
Number of new awards pending The number of proposals selected will be
adequate proposals of merit dependent on the number and quality of
proposals submitted and on the availability of
funds.
Maximum duration of awards 1 year, see Section 3

Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of investigation
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of full
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 pm Eastern time on March 29, 2023
Within 6 months after proposal receipt.
10 pages. See Section 2; see also Table 1 of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
This program is relevant to the Heliophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
See B.1, The Heliophysics Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-
32T 32T

submission of proposals 4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers

Submission medium
Web site for submission proposal via
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
32T 32T

NSPIRES available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or

32T 32T

(202) 479-9376)
Web site for submission proposal via 32T http://grants.gov (help desk available at
32T

Grants.gov 32T support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)

32T

B.15-5
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package NNH22ZDA001N-HITS
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this Lika Guhathakurta
program. Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1992
Email:
madhulika.guhathakurta@nasa.gov
32T 32T

B.15-6
B.16 HELIOPHYSICS AI/ML-READY DATA
NOTICE: Corrected May 26, 2022. The DAPR Table in Section 3
erroneously gave the default ROSES page limit for the S/T/M Section
of Step-2 proposals. This has been corrected to 10 pages. The
proposal due dates are unchanged; Step-1 proposals are due
10/28/2022 and Step-2 proposals are due 01/18/2023.
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-
anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared according
to the guidelines in Section 3 and in the associated "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element.
The data management plan will be evaluated as part of the Intrinsic
Merit of the proposal and must be included in a special section (see
Section 2.5).
The S/T/M section of proposals is limited to ten (10) pages.
1. Scope of Program
This Heliophysics artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-Ready Data (H-ARD)
Program element solicits proposals that enable the advancement of the goals and
objectives of NASA Heliophysics by developing new tools and methods for the
generation of AI/ML-ready datasets from existing research and mission data.
H-ARD is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers interested
in this program element should read B.1, the Heliophysics Research Program Overview
for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Common requirements for all ROSES elements
and proposals are found in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and NASA Guidebook
for Proposers and the order of precedence for proposers is the following: ROSES
Element B.16 (this document) takes precedence followed by B.1, The Heliophysics
Research Program Overview, followed by the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
and, finally, the 2022 NASA Proposer's Guidebook. Proposers should be familiar with all
of these resources.
Artificial intelligence (AI) and its subset, machine learning (ML), have become potentially
effective means for achieving scientific goals and collecting and analyzing large data
sets. Scientists have begun to use "theory-aided" or "knowledge-aided" AI to achieve
breakthroughs. These tools and techniques can lead the way to a new understanding
and drive science concepts for future strategic missions and other research efforts. The
AI/ML approach is data-intensive, with data sets used for training, tuning and testing
AI/ML processes.
Heliophysics data must be AI/ML- ready to be able to apply various methods and tools
and to be stored as AI/ML catalogs and archives for public use. This process includes
creating “clean” datasets which might require fixing structural errors, handling missing
data, removing non-physical outlier points, and/or filtering observations. With a clean
dataset, even simple algorithms can yield important insights. The quality of the data is
key to the quality of machine learning algorithms developed from the data. In creating
such a dataset, specific domain expertise or collaboration with the persons responsible

B.16-1
for the data quality (for example, the PI of a satellite instrument) becomes very
important.
The H-ARD program goal is to create AI/ML ready data sets and products, which allow
the use of AI/ML methodologies and approaches to address specific science problems.
Examples of AI/ML ready data activities that would be considered for a H-ARD
investigation include:
• Creating a comprehensive set of labeled features from an existing observational
data set;
• Creating AI data science products to advance automated mission operations;
• Developing general AI/ML data-related methods and approaches applicable to
multiple NASA missions;
• Improving the calibration of data or using new techniques to calibrate data like
self-calibration, etc.
This is not an exhaustive list of examples. Any activities toward creating AL/ML-ready
data sets, including cleaning data, to advance Heliophysics research are solicited
through H-ARD.
2. General Submission and Evaluation Guidelines
To provide adequate notice to potential reviewers, this program uses a two-step
proposal submission process. The overall description of a two-step process can be
found in Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
In the two-step process a Step-1 proposal is required. Potential reviewers are solicited
based on the Step-1 proposals. The proposal team members may not be changed
between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, unless prior approval is obtained from the
Program Officer of the element. The title and broad science goals of the proposal may
not be changed such that they would significantly affect the scientific or technical
expertise required to properly evaluate a proposal. Changes in a proposal that alter the
title and/or broad science goals will result in a proposal being declared non-compliant.
2.1 Step-1 Proposals
A Step-1 proposal is required and must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 due
date (see and of ROSES). The Step-1 proposal must be submitted by the organization’s
Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). No budget or other elements are
required. Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a full
proposal.
The Step-1 proposal is restricted to the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on
the NSPIRES web interface cover pages. References and any other supporting material
are not required, but, if included, must fit within the limit.
The Step-1 proposals must include a brief statements of the following:
• Science goals, objectives and/or challenges;
• The methodology to be used, including what data, models, analysis and
approach;
• The relevance of the problem to Heliophysics.

B.16-2
Step-1 proposals will be checked for compliance, but they will not be evaluated. The
expected format and evaluation criteria are described below. Submission of the Step-1
proposal does not obligate the offerors to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal later.
2.2 Step-2 Proposals
Proposals must be submitted electronically by the Step-2 due date given in
Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES). The Step-2 proposal must be submitted via NSPIRES or
Grants.gov by the organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). A
budget and other specified information is required.
Proposers must have submitted a Step-1 proposal to be eligible to submit a Step-2
proposal. Proposers who received a noncompliance letter are not eligible to submit a
Step-2 proposal.
Each Principal Investigator (PI) may submit one and only one Step-2 proposal to this
program element per year, see below. The PI, Co-Investigators (Co-Is), and any paid
team members must each have a specific and defined task essential to the completion
of the project. Unfunded team members who are performing tasks that are essential to
completion of the project are unfunded Co-Is, not collaborators. Unfunded Co-Is must
show support for their effort, e.g., by the inclusion in the E&R document (see Section 3)
of a letter of support as is required for foreign Co-Is, see Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation. Appropriate knowledge of the mission/instrument data and that
of AI/ML practices must be demonstrated. Thus cross-functional teams (AI and
heliophysics experts) are specifically welcome. In addition, development opportunities
for underrepresented and underserved communities to obtain AI skills and working with
data are highly encouraged.
Step-2 Proposals must include the following sections with the preferred order:
• The need for, and perceived impact of the proposed work to the state of
knowledge in the field;
• The methodology to be employed in conducting the proposed effort (NOTE: the
proposal must demonstrate that the methodology is both appropriate and feasible
to make substantial progress, and H-ARD projects must be substantiated using
appropriate data, primarily from NASA missions);
• The relevance of the proposed work to Heliophysics must be demonstrated;
• A general plan of work, the management structure for the proposal personnel,
and a description of the expected contribution to the proposed effort by the PI
and each person as identified in the proposal whether or not they derive support
from the proposed budget.
Step-2 proposals must demonstrate the potential value of resulting AI/ML-ready data
sets or features in the investigation of one or more high-level science goals in the Living
With a Star program, the Space Weather program, or from the Heliophysics Decadal
survey (Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society).
A maximum of 10 pages is allowed for the Science/Technical/Management Section of
all Step-2 proposals to this program element.

B.16-3
2.3 Limitations and Scope
Proposals outside the scope of H-ARD include the following:
• Proposals for the same or essentially the same work submitted concurrently to
other program elements in Appendix B or F, as specified in B.1 Section 1.4. The
proposal submission date for H-ARD is the date that will be used to compare
against proposals submitted to other programs in case of multiple submissions
and duplications as specified in Section 1.4 of B.1;
• Work for which the proposing organization (or investigators) are already funded
by NASA or other means. Where projects might appear to overlap, proposers
must show, in the E&R document, that the proposed effort does not duplicate
other awards.
2.4 Data Usage and Availability
All data, whether of NASA or non-NASA origin, must be available from NASA's Solar
Data Analysis Center, Space Physics Data Facility, or at no cost from an equivalent,
publicly accessible archive (with a link to the archive included in the proposal and/or
Data Management Plan) 30 days prior to the submission date of the proposal.
2.5 Data Management Plans
To broaden access to the results of NASA-funded research, all proposals must contain
a Data Management Plan (DMP), which will be evaluated as part of the Intrinsic Science
Merit. Proposers are strongly encouraged to review Section 1.5 of B.1 The Heliophysics
Research Program Overview for the required content of the DMP. The DMP must
describe: 1) the management plan of all data obtained in the investigation described; 2)
how data products will be integrated with the original data repository and become
publicly available; 3) expected documentation and/or publication of the results.
The DMP is limited to two pages and must appear after the S/T/M section and citations.
The DMP does not count against the S/T/M page limit. DMPs must be placed in a 2-
page section entitled "Data Management Plan" immediately following the references
and citations for the S/T/M Section. A template is available, see Section 1.5 of B.1 the
Heliophysics Division Research Overview. Since proposals to this program element will
be evaluated using dual-anonymous peer review, the DMP in the main proposal PDF
must be anonymized.
3. Special Instructions for Proposals under Dual Anonymous Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members
on the review panel, but the reviewers are not explicitly provided the identity of the
proposing teams or organizations until after the evaluation of the merit, relevance and
cost reasonableness of the proposal. The overarching objective of dual-anonymous
peer review is to mitigate unconscious bias in the evaluation of the proposal.
Proposers should consult the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under
"Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element for detailed
instructions on writing proposals appropriate for dual-anonymous peer review.
Proposals may not include anything that identifies the names of investigators or their

B.16-4
institutions. When submitting proposals, all proposers must also upload a separate
"Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized" (E&R) document, which is not
anonymized. The "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" contains complete information
on how to write this separate document.
The NSPIRES cover pages or "front matter" will not be seen by peer reviewers (i.e., PI
responses to various queries regarding programmatic content such as Budget, Proposal
Team, International participation, and Business Data). This has two impacts: (1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and (2) proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" (E&R) document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
identifying information.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals without taking into account the
proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after the evaluation is finalized
for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the E&R documents. The panel will
assess the qualifications of the team and verify that all resources discussed in the
proposal body are indeed available and assess the team capabilities required to
execute a given proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key factors for PIs to keep in mind are:
• Proposals may not include language that identifies the names of investigators or
their institutions, as discussed in the Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals
• PIs are required to upload along with the proposal an additional "Expertise and
Resource – Not Anonymized" PDF through NSPIRES.
• SMD understands that dual-anonymous peer review represents a major shift in
the evaluation of proposals and, as such, there may be occasional slips in writing
anonymized proposals. However, SMD reserves the right to return without review
proposals that are particularly egregious in terms of the identification of the
proposing team.
Proposals must be anonymized using the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document in the "Other Documents" section of the NSPIRES page. Guidelines for
formatting full proposals are specified in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Specific requirements below supersede those
sources.
A summary of the main requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below.
Item Requirement [Corrected May 26, 2022]
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 15 10 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.

B.16-5
 Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.
4. Additional Required Content
All investigations must demonstrate the availability and usability of processed data and
that they can be readily fed into analysis algorithms or tools. The final product: 1) must

B.16-6
be available at a standardized level and correspond well to the data collection of the
physical system being studied; 2) demonstrate that spurious data and non-physical
values can be corrected or identified; 3) become available in a way that is easily read
into an AI algorithm (e.g., Keras, PyTorch). Given the unique nature of H-ARD, any
products obtained through a H-ARD funded program should become publicly available
in a prompt manner.
5. Compliance and Evaluation Criteria
Proposals that are not compliant with formatting requirements (e.g., margins, font sizes,
line spacing) may be rejected without review or declined after review. See Section
IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
for details.
Compliant proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria specified Section V (a) of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. These
criteria are intrinsic (scientific and technical) merit, relevance, and cost reasonableness.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include:
• Compelling nature and scientific priority of science goals enabled by the project,
including the importance of the problem within the broad field of Heliophysics; the
unique value of the investigation to enable scientific progress in the context of
current understanding in the field, and the importance of carrying out the project
now.
• Appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology, including the
appropriateness of the selected algorithms for completing the development and
the feasibility of the methodology for ensuring success. All investigations must
demonstrate: 1) the availability and usability of a large amount of similarly
processed data and 2) how they can readily serve as input to analysis algorithms
or tools.
Based on the above two factors, the evaluation will consider the overall potential
science impact and probable success of the investigation.
Relevance to and priority within the H-ARD program will be assessed vs. the topics
discussed in Section 1. Each proposal must demonstrate that the investigation is
relevant and of high priority.
Cost reasonableness will, in part, include the amount of work to be accomplished
versus the amount of time proposed (See Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation regarding the evaluation of cost).
6. Available Funds and Award Duration
This program has no dedicated budget. The number of selected proposals will be
dependent on the number and quality of proposals submitted and on the availability of
funds from the relevant HPD program. The duration of the award should not exceed one
year.

B.16-7
7. Award Types
The H-ARD program will primarily award funds through three vehicles: (1) grants, (2)
interagency transfers, and (3) awards to NASA Centers. The H-ARD program will not
award contracts, because it is not appropriate given the nature of the work solicited. An
institution that has received a contract previously can receive funds as a grant by not
charging a fee.
8. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for No dedicated budget; selected proposals will be
first year of new awards funded by the relevant HPD program.
Number of new awards pending See Section 6
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 1 year

Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA

Planning date for start of

investigation
Page limit for the central STM
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
6 months after proposal due date
10 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-HARD

B.16-8
Point of contact concerning this
program
Katya Verner
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1213
Email: ekaterina.m.verner@nasa.gov
B.16-9
B.17 INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE FOR ECLIPSE 2024
NOTICE: Amended August 8, 2022. This amendment releases the final
text and due dates for this program element, which had been listed as
"TBD". Step-1 Proposals are due September 9, 2022, and Step-2
proposals are due November 8, 2022.
Proposers must use the standard Heliophysics template for Current
and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of time
commitment, See https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-
heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-proposals for more details.
Use of the template for the Data Management Plan is encouraged, not
required.
1. Scope of the Program
A total solar eclipse is widely regarded as one of the most incredible natural phenomena
visible from Earth. On April 8, 2024, a total solar eclipse will be visible over Mexico, the
USA and Canada. In the continental USA the eclipse path will span from Texas to
Maine. For around 3 hours, city after city along the eclipse centerline will experience
several minutes of darkness during daytime as totality moves from south to north along
the eastern part of the USA. While the path of totality will cover a swath only 124 miles
wide, the entire continental United States will see partial eclipse of the Sun. It is
estimated that a large fraction of the population in North America will witness this
natural event (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024/)
The purpose of the Interdisciplinary Science for Eclipse (ISE) program element is to
support development of new research and/or enhancement of existing research, applied
to the 2024 total solar eclipse. This program element is especially interested in receiving
interdisciplinary proposals defined as including the collection of eclipse data and its
application for the study of the Sun, Earth, and Moon that is relevant to Heliophysics.
Interdivisional topics that are relevant to the eclipse are also welcome (see Section
2.4.2). This total solar eclipse will be visible from a large swath of land mass covering
Mexico, the USA and Canada and the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. All proposals must
demonstrate links to the 2024 solar eclipse. This program element supports scientific
research and development and deployment of existing and/or new technology. Building
on existing partnerships and the use of interdisciplinary science approaches is
encouraged.
This initiative complements NASA’s capabilities of observing the Sun and the Sun-
Earth-Moon system globally from space thereby supporting NASA’s mission to "drive
advances in science, technology, aeronautics, space exploration, economic vitality, and
stewardship of the Earth." More specifically it supports Objective 1.4 from the NASA
Strategic Plan to "understand the Sun and its interactions with Earth and the solar
system, including space weather" by advancing the scientific research during the total
solar eclipse of 2024. It does so by directly supporting scientific research and
development and deployment of existing and/or new technology.
This program is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers
interested in this program element should read B.1, the Heliophysics Research Program

B.17-1
Overview for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Defaults for all ROSES elements are
found in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and for all NASA solicitations in the
Guidebook for Proposers. The order of precedence is the following: This document
(B.17 ISE) followed by B.1, followed by the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and
last the Guidebook for Proposers. Proposers should review all of these resources to
ensure compliance with Program requirements.
1.1 Solicited Investigations
Regardless of the scientific focus, the type of proposals, or sources of data, proposals
may aim to address eclipse science at the local, regional, continental, or global scales.
These approaches could complement NASA spacecraft observations by providing
increased temporal or spatial sampling or contribute to the validation of NASA data
products derived from spacecraft observations or use other innovative methods and/or a
combination of the above to enhance the utility of NASA's observation systems from
space, air, ocean and land during this unique opportunity.
Open-ended proposals or those with a large number of science questions to be
addressed are not solicited.
Proposals should not simply explain how the measurement could be used but to be
considered interdisciplinary, should include tasks that use the resulting data to, for
example, improve models, guide observations, or other relevant tasks.
Possible areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
• Design and manufacture of hardware to contribute to and enhance the science of
the inner corona during the total solar eclipse;
• Contributing to any relevant eclipse-related science (e.g., of the inner corona,
ionospheric, thermospheric, and mesospheric investigations using the eclipse as
a point response function);
• Viewing eclipse-induced changes in the atmosphere and/or atmospheric
response under the shadow of the Moon;
• Remote sensing observations and/or in-situ measurements using spaceborne,
airborne, seaborne and/or land-based assets to observe the eclipse or conduct
any relevant eclipse-related science.
2. Submission and Evaluation Guidelines
2.1 General Considerations
Each Principal Investigator (PI) is allowed to submit one and only one proposal to this
program element. Within the proposing team, the PI, Science PI, and Co-Investigators
(Co-Is) must each have specific and defined tasks in the project, and the tasks must be
essential to the completion of the project. Proposals may be declared noncompliant
based on either the Step-1 or Step-2 proposal if they are outside the scope of the ISE
program (see Section 1 above) or if they fail to meet submission guidelines specified
below (Sections 2.2-2.4).
2.2 Two-Step Submission Process
To provide adequate notice to potential reviewers, this program uses the "binding" two-
step proposal submission process described in Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES Summary
B.17-2
of Solicitation in which only proposers who are “invited” can submit a Step-2 proposal.
See also Section 1.3 of B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program Overview. Those who
are not familiar with the two-step process may refer to the "How to Submit a Step-1
Proposal" PDF under "Other documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program
element.
In the two-step process a Step-1 proposal is required. Potential reviewers are solicited
based on the Step-1 proposals, so the broad science goals of the proposal may not be
changed such that they would significantly affect the scientific or technical expertise
required to properly evaluate a proposal. Doing so may result in a proposal being
declared non-compliant. Changes to funded team members between the Step-1 and
Step-2 proposals require prior approval from the Program Officer (in Section 3).
2.3 Step-1 Proposals
A Step-1 proposal is required and must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 due
date given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022. The Step-1 proposal must be submitted
by the organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). No budget or
other elements are required. Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible
to submit a full proposal.
Step-1 proposals will be checked for compliance, but they will not be evaluated. The
expected format and evaluation criteria are described below. Submission of the Step-1
proposal does not obligate the offerors to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal later.
2.3.1 Step-1 Proposal Content
The Step-1 proposal is restricted to the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on
the NSPIRES web interface cover pages. References and any other supporting material
are not required, but, if included, must fit within the limit.
The Step-1 proposals must include the following:
• The science goals and objectives to be addressed by the proposal;
• A brief statement of the methodology to be used, including what platform,
hardware, data, models, and analysis to be used for completing the investigation;
• A brief statement of the relevance of the problem to the goals of connecting the
eclipse to the study of the Sun, Earth and Moon, astronomy and/or space
science which includes the ionosphere-thermosphere-mesosphere (ITM) system.
No PDF attachment is required or permitted for Step-1 proposal submission. Proposers
will be invited by NSPIRES when they are able to submit their Step-2 proposals.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of
five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is. This information can be supplied in response to NSPIRES
cover page questions at the time of submission of the Step-1 proposal.
2.4 Step-2 Proposals
To be eligible, the 15-page (maximum) Step-2 proposal must be submitted electronically
by the Step-2 due date (see Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022). The Step-2 proposal
must be submitted via NSPIRES or Grants.gov by the organization’s Authorized

B.17-3
Organizational Representative (AOR). A budget and other specified information is
required.
Proposers must have submitted a Step-1 proposal and have been “invited” to be eligible
to submit a Step-2 proposal. Proposers who received a noncompliance letter are not
eligible to submit a Step-2 proposal.
2.4.1 Step-2 Proposal Content
The process for preparation and submission of the Step-2 proposal is the same as that
for any other ROSES proposal. Please refer to the "How to create and submit a Step-2
proposal" PDF under "Other documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program
element. Step-2 full proposals must adhere to requirements for content and formatting
(e.g., margins, font sizes, line spacing) specified in the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
The Scientific/Technical/Management section of Step-2 Proposals are restricted to
fifteen (15) pages and must include the following sections with the preferred order:
• The science objectives and perceived impact of the proposed work to the state of
knowledge in the field; references to existing work in the field should be limited to
that which is needed to justify the value of the science proposed. If applicable,
proposers may include reference to published work from the prior solicitations of
Interdisciplinary Science for Eclipse from ROSES-2016 and ROSES-2021;
• The data and methodology to be employed in conducting the proposed research;
the proposal must demonstrate (1) that the data are appropriate to address the
science objectives, and (2) that the methodology is both appropriate and feasible
to make substantial progress on the science objectives;
• The relevance of the proposed work to the 2024 eclipse science (Section 1); and
• A general plan of work and estimated schedule, the management structure for
the proposal personnel, and a description of the expected contribution to the
proposed effort by the PI and each person as identified in the proposal, whether
or not they derive support from the proposed budget. Postdoctoral fellows and
students need not be named.

Proposals must include a Data Management Plan (DMP). Use of the DMP template
from https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-appendix-b-
roses-proposals is encouraged. The DMP must be placed in a special section of the
proposal, not to exceed two pages in length, entitled "Data Management Plan"
immediately following the references and citations for the S/T/M section of the proposal.
The quality of the DMP will be evaluated as part of Intrinsic Merit. For additional
information on the required components of a DMP, please visit the Science Mission
Directorate's DMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/dmp-faq-roses
Historically, proposals that address a single well-focused compelling science objective
with a limited set of specific science questions have been more successful at
constructing methodologies that are demonstrably feasible and appropriate, as
compared with those that propose to address a large number of science questions or
that are directed at an overly-broad science topic.

B.17-4
 2.4.2 Step-2 Evaluation Criteria
Compliant proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria defined in the Guidebook
for Proposers and as specified in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation .
These criteria are Relevance, Merit, and Cost. Clarifications and additions specific to
this program element are listed below.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include the following:
• The interdisciplinary nature of the proposals in the context of Heliophysics
science objectives, as described in Section 1.1, i.e., preference is given to
proposals that include both collection of data and application of these data to
utilize the solar eclipse for the study of any relevant Heliophysics topic.
• Extent to which proposals not simply explain how the measurement could be
used, but includes tasks that use the resulting data to, for example, improve
models, guide observations, or other relevant tasks.
• Appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology, including the
appropriateness of the selected data, models, and analysis for completing the
investigation and the feasibility of the methodology for ensuring scientific
success. The appropriateness of all data utilized to address the proposed
science investigation, including where applicable, data from new missions and
other supporting space-based or ground-based observations, will be evaluated.
• The quality of the Data Management Plan.
Relevance to and priority within the ISE program will be assessed based on whether the
proposed work is appropriate for this total solar eclipse and cannot be accomplished in
the near term in another way.
The evaluation of cost reasonableness includes the amount of work to be accomplished
versus the amount of time proposed.
Moreover, proposals that are interdivisional (i.e., including work outside of that normally
funded by the Heliophysics Division) may be contingent on funds from the other Science
Mission Directorate Divisions.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget for ~ $2.0 M
new awards
Number of new awards pending 5-10
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 1.5 years

Due date for Step-1 proposal
Due date for Step-2 proposal
Date for start of investigation
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
Step-2 proposal
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
No earlier than January 1, 2023
15 pages. Plus, an additional 2-page data
management plan. See Section 2.4.1 above,
Table 1 of ROSES-2022, and Section 3.7 of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers

B.17-5
Relevance This program is relevant to the Science goals of
the Heliophysics division stated in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See Section 2.4 of this program element, Table
proposals 1 of ROSES-2022, Section IV of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation, and Section 3 of
the Guidebook for Proposers.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
submission of proposals of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
Web site for submission of Step-1 http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
and Step-2 proposal via NSPIRES at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
Web site for submission of Step 1 http://grants.gov (help desk available at
and Step-2 proposal via Grants.gov support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package NNH22ZDA001N-ISE
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this Madhulika Guhathakurta
program Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1992
Email: madhulika.guhathakurta@nasa.gov

B.17-6
B.18 HELIOPHYSICS LIVING WITH A STAR TOOLS AND METHODS
U

NOTICE: This program element is not being solicited in ROSES-2022.

It is anticipated that it will be next solicited in 2024.
1. U Scope of Program U

This Heliophysics Living With a Star (LWS) Tools and Methods (LWSTM) Program
solicits tools, techniques and/or methods that enable critically needed science advances
in the area of heliophysics research covered by LWS objectives, see
https://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/programs/living-with-a-star . Proposed tools
32TU U32T

and/or methods must be "shovel-ready", that is, able to proceed expeditiously leading to
completion in one and half years.
H-LWSTM is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers
interested in this program element should read B.1, the Heliophysics Research Program
Overview for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Defaults for all ROSES elements are
found in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and for all NASA solicitations in the
Guidebook for Proposers . The order of precedence is the following: This document
32T 32T

(B.18) followed by B.1, followed by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and last the
Guidebook for Proposers. Proposers should review all of these resources to ensure
compliance with Program requirements.
1.1 Background
Data science, machine learning, cloud computing and the technologies and practices
underlying them are an exciting era of scientific discovery with unprecedented volumes
of science data available from observations from multiple spacecraft in all LWS science
regimes, with prospects for even more observations with future missions. Furthering
scientific understanding is predicated on integration or closure of the triad of theory to
models to observations. Computer and information science and technology is a vital and
often enabling capability in all elements of this triad.
The program element utilizes NASA data and other open-source datasets to surface
new knowledge, accelerate new discoveries and support science workflows that are
suited to applied artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to:
• Improve discovery and access for all heliophysics data to immediately benefit
science data users and improve the overall user experience.
• Leverage current technology for the discovery, access, and effective use of NASA's
data, as well as enable new technology and analysis techniques for scientific
discovery in areas of heliophysics research covered by LWS objectives.
1.2 Solicited Investigations
H-LWSTM seeks innovative adaptations and applications of emerging AI techniques,
concepts, methodologies, etc. to demonstrate their feasibility and potential to increase
science return, as well as to inform missions in heliophysics research disciplines of
promising techniques and capabilities.

B.18-1
The H-LWSTM program element is intended to allow heliophysics research to be an
early, innovative, and less risk-averse adopter of AI tools and techniques, especially in
areas with potential for high payoff, if successful.
2. Proposal Requirements
This program uses a 2-step proposal submission process, described in the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation and B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program Overview.
The Scientific/Technical/Management section of Step-2 Proposals are restricted to ten
(10) pages and must include the following sections with the preferred order:
• The science objective(s) that would be enabled with the completion of the tool or
method and the perceived impact of the proposed work to the state of knowledge in
the field of LWS, (see Section 1); references to existing work in the field should be
limited to that needed to justify the value of the tool or method;
• The methodology to be employed in developing the tool or method; the proposal
must demonstrate (1) that the methodology is both appropriate and feasible to make
substantial progress on the tool or method and (2) that the validation of the tool
and/or method is appropriate and makes use of relevant data;
• The relevance of the proposed work to heliophysics research covered by LWS
objectives (see Section 1);
• A general plan of work, the management structure for the proposal personnel, and a
description of the expected contribution to the proposed effort by the PI and each
person as identified in the proposal, whether or not they derive support from the
proposed budget. Postdoctoral fellows and students need not be named.
• The archive to which the tool or method will be submitted.
3. Point of Contact
Lika Guhathakurta
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1992
Email: madhulika.guhathakurta@nasa.gov
32T 32T

B.18-2
B.19 HELIOPHYSICS LIVING WITH A STAR INFRASTRUCTURE
NOTICE: The Heliophysics Living with a Star Infrastructure is not
being solicited in ROSES-2022. It is anticipated that it will be next
solicited in 2026.
1. Scope of Program
The Heliophysics Living with a Star Infrastructure (H-LWSIS) program solicits proposals
to train and develop the next generation of heliophysicists to address complex cross-
discipline system-wide problems that are central to understanding and modeling the
Sun-Solar System connection. This element specifically covers the administration of the
Jack Eddy Postdoctoral Fellowship (JEPF) Program over a period of 4 years and the
management of the LWS Heliophysics Summer School (HSS). Descriptions of these
two infrastructure-building programs are found below. Proposals to this element must
address the administration and management of one or both of these programs. One of
the great challenges for the LWS science program is to achieve the "systems" science
required for enhancing our understanding that leads to predicting the Sun-Solar-System
connection, phenomena that span the whole Sun-Earth domain and beyond over many
temporal and spatial scales. As such, these two programs are central to the LWS
Program.
One factor that has impeded progress in cross-disciplinary research is that the science
community and, consequently, traditional Heliophysics Division Research programs,
have always been structured according to discipline boundaries (e.g., solar,
heliosphere, magnetosphere, ionosphere-thermosphere-mesosphere, and climate).
Thus, the types of cross-disciplinary projects that LWS needs most are the ones least
likely to be proposed to the traditional NASA Heliophysics basic science research and
analysis programs and cross-disciplinary projects are less likely to be supported there.
Central to this challenge is the development of a research community that can cross
traditional discipline boundaries and attack the system-wide problems that are central to
understanding and modeling the Sun-Solar System connection. Summer schools and
post-doctoral fellowships are possible avenues for addressing these development
needs and for fostering cross-disciplinary research.
Proposals to H-LWSIS must present a management plan that fosters and supports
cross-disciplinary activities that train cross-disciplinary researchers. For both the annual
heliophysics summer school and the Jack Eddy fellowships, proposals to this
announcement should describe what, if any, recruitment strategies and review criteria
may be used to ensure an open, collaborative, diverse, and inclusive NASA science
culture.
1.1 The Jack Eddy Postdoctoral Fellowship Program
The Jack Eddy Postdoctoral Fellowship (JEPF) Program was established by NASA's
Living With a Star program in 2009, see https://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/. This prestigious
fellowship program is named after pioneering solar researcher John A. "Jack" Eddy.
The two-year fellowship is designed to train the next generation of heliophysics
researchers. It matches early-career PhDs with experienced scientists at U.S. host

B.19-1
research institutions. This Fellowship program is open to recent PhDs (PhD within 5
years) whose project directly addresses the objectives of the LWS program.
The organization that is selected to run the JEPF program, in consultation with NASA's
Heliophysics Division, will determine the details of the program, but Jack Eddy Fellows
must:
• not be a current or former recipient of a Presidential Early Career Award for
Scientists and Engineers (PECASE).
• propose interdisciplinary research directly relevant to the objectives of the LWS
program.
1.2 LWS Heliophysics Summer School
The LWS Heliophysics Summer School was established by NASA's Living With a Star
program in 2007, see https://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/. This annual eight-day Summer
School focuses on the physics of space weather events that start at the Sun and
influence atmospheres, ionospheres and magnetospheres throughout the solar system.
Admission is very competitive; about 35 students are selected to attend each year. The
Summer School is open to graduate students, as well as first- and second-year
postdoctoral fellows.
2. Proposal Requirements
As stated in Section 1, proposals to this element may address the administration and
management of the Jack Eddy Postdoctoral Fellowship (JEPF) Program, the
administration and management of the Heliophysics Summer School Program, or both.
Proposals must include details of the plan to solicit, review and select participant/fellow
proposals, and support fellows (JEPF) or participants (HSS) in these Programs.
Requirements for the HSS Program include a description of the first year summer
school topics as well as a description of the plan for determining topics for subsequent
years.
3. Points of Contact
Points of contact concerning this Lika Guhathakurta
program all of whom share the Telephone: (202) 358-1992
following mailing address: Email:madhulika.guhathakurta@nasa.gov
Simon Plunkett
Heliophysics Division
Telephone: (202) 358-2034
Science Mission Directorate
Email: simon.p.plunkett@nasa.gov
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001 Jeff Morrill
Telephone: (202) 358-3744
Email: jeff.s.morrill@nasa.gov
[POC removed March 29, 2022]

B.19-2
B.20 HELIOPHYSICS TOOLS AND METHODS
NOTICE: Amended March 9, 2022. This amendment releases the final
text for this program element, which had been listed as "TBD". Neither
Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program
element. Proposals may be submitted at any time. See Section 3.2 for
details.
This is a new program that is replacing the Value-Added Enhancement
program, previously offered through B.12 HDEE.
All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template for
Current and Pending Support for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of
time commitment. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
appendix-b-roses-proposals.
Data Management Plans are not required, as those contents are
covered by the requirements in Section 2.3.
1. Scope of Program
The Heliophysics Tools and Methods (HTM) program encompasses the Python
software tools and method needs throughout Heliophysics, including Solar,
Heliospheric, Magnetosphere, and Ionosphere/Thermosphere/Mesosphere (ITM).
As part of a mission-oriented agency, the Tools and Methods program preferentially
seeks to fund those efforts that directly impact NASA Heliophysics missions or
interpretation of mission data. Projects involving data from other U.S. agencies or
institutions that are judged to be highly beneficial to NASA Heliophysics (HP) research
are included in the scope for this program, if not available in a suitable form from their
host’s institution.
The specific context of this call is provided by information on the Heliophysics Data
page at https://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/heliophysics-data.
HTM is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers interested in
this program element are encouraged to see the overview of the Heliophysics Research
Program in B.1 the Heliophysics Research Program Overview for Heliophysics-specific
requirements. Common default requirements for all ROSES proposals are found in the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the Proposer’s Guidebook but those may be
superseded by instructions in a program element like this one. The order of precedence
is the following: ROSES Element B.20 (this document) takes precedence followed by
B.1, followed by the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and finally the Proposer’s
Guidebook. Proposers should be familiar with all these resources.
2. Heliophysics Tools and Methods
This call solicits proposals to advance the goal of a robust, vital, and cohesive Python
environment for Heliophysics. Types of projects to be proposed under this call may
include but are not limited to:
• Data readers/writers for standard formats (FITS, CDF, NetCDF)

B.20-1
 • Analysis code, e.g., pySPEDAS or SolarSoft components; common research
methods.
• Visualization: improvements on common packages, focused on our needs
including graphics from line graphs to 2D and 3D representations of data and
simulations.
• Large data and large simulation use; parallel implementations; data mining.
• Generic Python machine learning and artificial intelligence routines.
• Specific science tasks that require either wrappers of, e.g., SciPy and NumPy
routines or novel code.
• Exposing software libraries written in other languages to Python integration by
providing the required set of wrapper routines.
2.1 Background on Python in Heliophysics Community
A significant goal of this program element is to maintain and contribute to the current
Python in Heliophysics Community (PyHC) effort. Useful information about the current
status of work in this area can be found in the overview paper by Burrell, et al. [Snakes
on a Spaceship, 2018], and more recent information can be found on the PyHC web
site. The vision statement for PyHC states:
"Facilitate scientific discovery by promoting the use and development of
sustainable open-source Python software across the solar and space
physics community; improving communication and collaboration between
disciplines, developers, and users; establishing and maintaining
development standards; and fostering interoperability and reproducibility."
And the strategic goals for this group are:
• Coordinate development across projects to minimize duplication of effort and
share lessons learned
• Promote best practices for software development, documentation, testing, and
dissemination
• Increase community awareness of and participation in projects
• Promote scientific reproducibility and software sustainability
• Educate and support the Python user community in solar and space physics
• Foster an open-source Python software ecosystem for Heliophysics research
and education
• Identify community needs for future development
• Identify and pursue opportunities for financial support
• Enable efficient interdisciplinary research
The philosophy of this call is that the best way to make progress is to work on real
projects of scientific community interest, with the aim to make functional code and to
incorporate it into the existing PyHC framework.
The HP community has been developing a wide variety of tools for data access,
production, and analysis based on the high-level, general-purpose Python programming
language. Early career researchers, especially, tend to come from backgrounds where
Python is the norm and languages (platforms/IDEs) such as IDL and MatLab are
seldom used. Many senior researchers are also finding that Python provides a very

B.20-2
natural way to conduct analysis and data-processing tasks. Python has the advantage
over some other currently popular languages in that it is open source, and thus provides
no economic barriers for use. It is widely used, with a model for namespaces that
encourages the development of packages of code centered on a particular task; this
has led to the rapid development in recent years of many of the tools needed in HP
research.
2.2 Programmatic Considerations
Proposals must discuss the relationship of the proposed effort to the present, as well as
anticipated, state of knowledge in the field, and its applicability to the relevant datasets
in Heliophyscis, and to any related NASA community research efforts.
Proposers should not duplicate work already being undertaken. The PyHC website
includes pointers to many of these efforts. Listed below are the past selections that
supported the PyHC effort:
• 2021 HDEE Selections
• 2020 HDEE Selections
• 2019 HDEE Selections
If an award is made, code that is produced must be released as open source through
mechanisms to be agreed upon by the Python in Heliophysics Community (see PyHC
and Section 2.1) and NASA.
This call will accept submissions throughout the year (no deadline). The rules for open
proposal submissions are outlined in B.1 and in Section 3.2.
2.3 Heliophysics Data Policy Implementation
Consistent with the Heliophysics Data Policy, all projects under this program must
involve scientific input, and all software and processes should support scientific utility,
as evidenced by the support and participation of scientists. As a complement to this, all
efforts must show evidence of good software engineering practices, for example, the
use of clear, documented, tested, efficient code that fully accounts for IT security issues.
Proposers to this call agree to the PyHC Standards that include requirements to
provide documentation, version control, testing, standard packaging, and other
elements intended to optimize the utility of the results. In line with the recommendations
of the National Academy of Science (NAS) Space Studies Board report, Open Source
Software Policy Options for NASA Earth and Space Sciences, the results of projects
under this call will be made publicly available as open source software as detailed by
the PyHC Standards. Each group awarded a grant effort under this call must work in
collaboration with the whole PyHC group for the benefit of all. Awardees are expected to
attend at least one of the PyHC group meetings (typically three days, to be budgeted in
the proposal) and abide by group decisions. Proposals to this call must indicate
explicitly the understanding of, and agreement with, the above points. After selection,
any areas where there are questions or concerns in terms of governance, protocols,
and procedures will be adjudicated by the cognizant NASA program officer.
Proposers should show an awareness of the wide variety of datasets now available, see
Table B.20-1, below, for examples.

B.20-3
 Table B.20-1: A sample of existing data repositories
Space Physics Data Facility (SPDF) https://spdf.gsfc.nasa.gov
Virtual Solar Observatory (VSO) https://www.nso.edu/data/vso
Virtual European Solar and Planetary Access site http://www.europlanet-
(VESPA) vespa.eu/EPN2020.shtml
European Space Astronomy Centre site (ESAC) https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/esdc
Coupling, Energetics, and Dynamics of Atmospheric http://cedar.openmadrigal.org
Regions site (CEDAR)
LASP Interactive Solar Irradiance Data Center http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird
Planetary Data Systems Planetary Plasma https://pds-ppi.igpp.ucla.edu
Interactions node
SuperMAG ground-based magnetometer site http://supermag.jhuapl.edu
Most of these repositories are available through “restful” Web Services or other
machine-to-machine protocols, increasingly including the general Heliophysics
Application Programmer Interface. Proposers are also encouraged to utilize the
Heliophysics Data Portal that provides metadata, documentation, and access points for
an increasingly complete set of HP data and other products.
2.4 Proposal Content
Proposals must include explicit subheadings as given in each of the bulleted points
below, in the order below, with a discussion of each topic indicated (explicitly note if not
applicable):
• Software or enhancement to be produced: A clear description of the code(s) to
be produced or community assistance to be implemented, including the scientific
or other problems solved and the basic methods used, and the relationship to
NASA strategic plans and the HP Data Policy.
• Scientific utility: An argument for why the codes or assistance are scientifically
relevant and useful, and the uniqueness or scientific advantages of the proposed
approach compared to alternatives. Specific research projects should be
mentioned, along with an assessment of whether these will bring qualitatively
new insights. This should be supported by, e.g., refereed publications or other
citations and uses by people outside the PI team. A poor justification would be:
"This work supports projects involving long-term changes in the heliosphere"
without specific examples. An excellent justification would be: "The following
three groups are awaiting this code to be able to do these cutting-edge scientific
studies …". In the case of very generic capabilities (e.g., a CDF reader), the
breadth of the utility may be more important than the support of specific projects.
• Method of Production: How the Enhancement will be produced, details of the
technical approach, its requirements and feasibility, including a presentation of
relevant algorithms.
• Current Status: The status of the code and its current means of support.
• Documentation Plan: A plan for providing required metadata and information
needed for independent scientific usability consistent with PyHC standards.
• Archive and Dissemination Plan: A discussion of the use of GitHub or other code
repositories and the methods of code distribution consistent with PyHC
standards.

B.20-4
 • Need for Resources: A discussion that demonstrates that the requested
resources are necessary and sufficient for success in achieving the proposed
effort. The resource discussion should include: how many hours of what specific
level of support person are required, why and what level of science support is
needed in terms of FTEs, and how HDEE resources complement other support.
• The relationship of the proposed effort to other areas, including the present and
anticipated state of knowledge in the field, to the relevant datasets and code that
should be available from any related existing or planned missions, and to any
related NASA community research efforts.
The discussion of each of these points may be brief, but each point must be clearly
addressed, and these points are the key elements of a proposal.
3. Proposal Preparation and Submission
3.1 General Considerations
Within the proposing team, the PI (or Science PI), and Co-Investigators (Co-Is) must
each have specific and defined tasks in the project, and the tasks must be essential to
the completion of the project. Proposals may be declared noncompliant if they are
outside the scope of the HTM program (see Section 1 above) or if they fail to meet
submission guidelines specified below (Section 3.2).
3.2 Submission Process
Proposals to this program element may be submitted at any time without any
preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1 proposal. Certain restrictions
related to duplicate proposals and resubmissions are described below. The NSPIRES
page for this program element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that is simply the
end date for the current HTM, after which proposals may be submitted to HTM in the
next ROSES.
While proposals can be submitted at any time, proposals will be evaluated
approximately quarterly (see Section 4). Once ROSES-2023 is released in mid
February of 2023, new proposals should be created in response to the HTM program
element in ROSES-2023. However, proposals already started in response to this
program element may be completed and submitted through March 2023.
Specifically, for the rolling submissions in this program element:
o A PI may at most submit two distinct (different) proposals in any given calendar
year.
o A PI may resubmit the same or slightly modified proposal at most once in any
given calendar year.
o A proposal with more than 50% new content is counted as a new proposal and
not a resubmitted proposal.
A (maximum) of 6 pages is allowed for the Science/Technical/Management Section of
proposals to this program element. The proposal must be submitted via NSPIRES or
Grants.gov by the organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). A
budget and other specified information is required.

B.20-5
The process for preparation and submission of the 6-page proposals is the same as that
for any other ROSES proposal. Guidelines for content and formatting proposals are
specified in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation (SoS) and, if not present in the SoS,
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Proposals must adhere to formatting requirements,
e.g., margins, font sizes, line spacing, in Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES SoS.
Proposals must include the following within the Scientific/Technical/Management
section: clear descriptions of (1) specific Heliophysics scientific problems that could be
addressed with the Tools & Methods projects in conjunction with other HP resources,
(2) the importance of the problems, and (3) the details of the technical approach to
providing the promised software. The answers to the above points should arise naturally
in following the required contents in Section 2.4.
4. Evaluation
Compliant proposals will be evaluated according to the three criteria as defined in
Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers: merit, relevance (to this program
element), and cost, as clarified below.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include:
• Compelling nature and scientific priority of science goals enabled by the Tools and
Methods project, including the importance of the problem within the broad field of
Heliophysics; the unique value of the investigation to enable scientific progress in
the context of current understanding in the field, and the importance of carrying out
the project now.
• Appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology, including the appropriateness of
the selected algorithms for completing the development and the feasibility of the
methodology for ensuring success.
Based primarily on these two factors within merit, the evaluation will consider the overall
potential science impact and probable success of the investigation.
Relevance will be judged by whether the proposal addresses the strategic goals of a
Python Tools and Methods project (See Section 2).
Cost reasonableness will include assessing the amount of work to be accomplished
versus the amount of time proposed.
Approximate dates for the evaluations will be May 2022, August 2022, November 2022,
February 2023, and May 2023.
5. Available Funds
It is anticipated that approximately $500K will be made available to support ~7 new
selections of 1-year duration each year, with a median award value of $75K. Smaller
efforts should request lower funds, while larger efforts need to specifically justify their
larger requests. Investigations in the range of $50K – $100K are anticipated. Proposals
are expected to be for one year, with a second year possible with strong justification.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for one- $500K, see Section 5
year awards

B.20-6
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program element.
~5-8, see Section 5
1, second year possible if well justified, see
Section 5
Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 pm Eastern time on March 29, 2023
~ 4 months after proposal submission.
Evaluation quarterly, see Section 4.
6 pages
This program is relevant to the Heliophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See Section 2.4 of this program element, Table
1 of ROSES and, finally, Section 3 of the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-HTM
Reinhard Friedel,
Telephone: (202) 281-6360
Email: reinhard.h.friedel@nasa.gov
and
D. Aaron Roberts
Telephone: (301) 286-5606
Email: aaron.roberts@nasa.gov
B.20-7
B.21 HELIOPHYSICS CITIZEN SCIENCE INVESTIGATIONS
NOTICE: An NSPIRES bug prevented submission of NOIs and Step-1
proposals to certain programs including this one from 8/13/-8/18.
Accordingly, the Step-1 proposal due date for this program element
has been delayed by six days. Step-1 proposals are now due August
24, 2022.
Amended June 29, 2022. This amendment releases the final text for
this program element, which had been listed as "TBD". This program
element will use a two-step submission process, see Section 2.2. Step-
1 proposals are due August 24 18, 2022, and Step-2 proposals are due
October 13, 2022.
All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
appendix-b-roses-proposals for Current and Pending Support for the
PI and all Co-Is, regardless of time commitment. Use of the DMP
template is encouraged.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview
The Heliophysics Citizen Science Investigations (H-CSI) program supports the growing
portfolio of citizen science opportunities through medium-scale citizen science projects.
This first H-CSI call enables citizen science during the upcoming Heliophysics Big Year,
encouraging proposers to take advantage of the concurrence of multiple solar and
heliophysics events.
H-CSI will expand participation of citizen scientists in NASA heliophysics research,
bringing unprecedented statistical power and new insights not realistically achievable by
other means to the study of a number of natural heliophysics events in the quickly
approaching ~September 2023 - December 2024 time interval. This approximately 1-
year time interval, designated the Heliophysics Big Year, encompasses two solar
eclipses across North America in 2023 and 2024 and the arrival of solar cycle
maximum. “Big Year” is a term borrowed from birding that denotes a year during which
a maximum number of bird sightings was achieved; likewise, the Heliophysics Big Year
provides an opportunity to observe multiple solar and geospace phenomena. This call
solicits investigations which will develop and implement capabilities to augment and
enhance NASA scientific data, knowledge, and capacity through voluntary observations,
interpretations, or other direct participation by members of the general public centered
on these heliophysics events.
H-CSI is a component of the Heliophysics Research Program and proposers interested
in this program element are encouraged to see B.1, The Heliophysics Research
Program Overview for Heliophysics-specific requirements. Common requirements for all
ROSES elements and proposals are found in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
and the 2022 Proposer’s Guidebook. The order of precedence for proposers is the
following: ROSES Element B.21 (this document) takes precedence followed by B.1, The
Heliophysics Research Program Overview, followed by the ROSES Summary of

B.21-1
Solicitation and, finally, the Proposer's Guidebook. Proposers should be familiar with all
of these resources. Additional citizen science resources can be found at
https://science.nasa.gov/citizenscience.
1.2 Solicited Investigations
This year the Heliophysics Division is soliciting this program element to strategically
promote the use of citizen science, crowdsourcing, and the data they generate in
concert with the NASA Heliophysics System Observatory data to dramatically advance
Heliophysics. For this program element, citizen science is defined as efforts or projects
that use voluntary public participation in the scientific endeavor, including – but not
limited to – formulating research questions, conducting experiments, collecting and
analyzing data collected by members of the community and/or professional scientists,
interpreting results, making new discoveries, and/or developing or deploying
technologies and applications. Crowdsourcing, another frequently used term describing
voluntary contributions, is included under citizen science in this program element.
H-CSI solicits medium-scale citizen science investigations, which are mature enough to
produce science results and achieve proposed project goals within a maximum 3-year
period of performance. Those citizen science investigations at an early phase that
require seed funding are encouraged to propose to the cross-disciplinary ROSES
element F.9 Citizen Science Seed Funding Program (CSSFP) program. Investigations
previously funded through CSSFP or a similar program, are welcome to submit
proposals to H-CSI, though previous seed funding is not a requirement if scientific
readiness can be justified.
1.2.1 Science Focus
This program element solicits proposals for three-year scientific research projects that
are enabled by citizen science activities particularly during the Heliophysics Big Year
period, approximately September 2023 – December 2024. During this time period, there
will be multiple natural phenomena providing critical and timely opportunities for new,
compelling heliophysics research. Specifically, we encourage proposals that focus on:
• solar eclipse research [targeted solar eclipse dates: October 14, 2023 (annular),
April 8, 2024 (total)]; and/or
• solar maximum interval beginning in 2024 and/or associated space weather.
Proposals on topics other than the two science focuses listed above are allowed for
submission, but all proposals must demonstrate clear linkages between the citizen
science project and advancing NASA's Heliophysics science goals. Proposed citizen
science projects may include, but are not limited to:
• Combination of Heliophysics mission and ground-based data with other data
sources in concert with a citizen science effort to dramatically advance an area of
Heliophysics science;
• Projects that gather or produce new data;
• Calibration and validation, augmentation, or enhancement to significantly
increase the quality, resolution, scope, or extent of existing spacecraft and
ground-based data;

B.21-2
 • Projects that demonstrate value in adding or enhancing crowdsourcing in
scientific workflows.
Citizen scientist projects can have a high impact by significantly extending the scope
and quality of satellite-based observations to answer important scientific questions that
cannot otherwise be addressed. Any existing data used in the proposed investigation
must be in a publicly accessible archive at least 30 days prior to Step-2 proposal
submission (see B.1, The Heliophysics Research Program Overview). Details on
NASA’s Heliophysics data and missions are available at the following links: NASA’s
Heliophysics data and NASA's Heliophysics missions.
The work carried out for this program must be in support of the Heliophysics strategic
goals and objectives in NASA’s 2018 Strategic Plan and Chapter 4.1 of the NASA 2022
Science Plan (both at https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy), as well as
the NASA Heliophysics Citizen Science strategy:
https://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/programs/citizen-science. The recommended
priorities of the Heliophysics community are also discussed in the National Research
Council Decadal Strategy for Solar and Space Physics report, Solar and Space Physics:
A Science for a Technological Society (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13060/solar-and-
space-physics-a-science-for-a-technological-society). The decadal mid-term
assessment includes several references to citizen science which has emerged largely
since the prior decadal.
2. Submission and Evaluation Guidelines
2.1 General Considerations
Each Principal Investigator (PI) is allowed to submit one and only one proposal to this
program element. Within the proposing team, the PI and Co-Investigators (Co-Is) must
each have specific and defined tasks in the project, and the tasks must be essential to
the completion of the project.
Proposals may be declared noncompliant if they are outside the scope of the H-CSI
program (see Section 1 above) or if they fail to meet formatting or submission guidelines
specified below (Sections 2.2-2.4).
2.2 Two-Step Submission Process
Proposal submission for H-CSI will use a two-step proposal submission process. Use of
the two-step process increases the notice provided to potential reviewers. The overall
description of a two-step process can be found in Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation. In the two-step process a Step-1 proposal is required.
Both Step-1 and Step-2 proposals must be submitted electronically via NSPIRES by the
organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) by the proposal due
date (see Table 2 and Table 3 of ROSES). No budget or other elements are required for
a Step-1 proposal. Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit
a Step-2 proposal. All Step-1 proposals will be reviewed for compliance; all compliant
proposals submitted to these calls will be "invited" to submit a Step-2 proposal.
Because potential reviewers are solicited based on the Step-1 proposal, the funded
team members may not be changed between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, unless

B.21-3
prior approval is obtained from the Program Officer of the element. The title and broad
science goals of the proposal may not be changed such that they would significantly
affect the scientific or technical expertise required to properly evaluate a proposal.
Significant changes in a Step-2 proposal that could impact the review may result in a
proposal being declared non-compliant.
2.3 Step-1 Proposal Content
The Step-1 proposal is restricted to the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on
the NSPIRES cover page. References and any other supporting material are not
required, but, if included, must fit within the limit.
The Step-1 proposal shall include the following information:
• The science goals and objectives to be addressed by the proposal;
• A brief statement of the methodology to be used, including what data, models,
and analysis will be used for completing the investigation; and
• A brief statement of the relevance of the problem to the Heliophysics overarching
goal or specific objectives as described in B.1.
• Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of
five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from
the institutions of the PI or Co-Is. This information can be supplied in response to
NSPIRES cover page questions at the time of submission of the Step-1 proposal.
Submission of the Step-1 proposal does not obligate the offerors to submit a
Step-2 proposal later.
2.4 Step-2 Proposal Content
The process for preparation and submission of proposals is described in Section IV(b)ii
of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Proposals must adhere to formatting
requirements (e.g., margins, font sizes, line spacing). Proposals are restricted to fifteen
(15) pages for the Scientific/Technical/Management section and must include the
following sections with the preferred order:
• The science objectives and perceived impact of the proposed work to the state of
knowledge in the field; references to existing work in the field should be limited to
that which is needed to justify the value of the science proposed;
• The data and citizen science methodology to be employed in conducting the
proposed research; the proposal must demonstrate (1) that the data are
appropriate to address the science objectives, and (2) that the methodology is
both appropriate and feasible to make substantial progress on the science
objectives; Discussion of the citizen science methodology should include:
o the utilization of existing platforms and/or existing enthusiast communities to
maximize collective impact; and/or
o the development of new platforms and/or building of new communities.
• The relevance of the proposed work to the Heliophysics overarching goal or
specific objectives as described in B.1;
• A general plan of work, the management structure for the proposal personnel,
and a description of the expected contribution to the proposed effort by the PI
and each person as identified in the proposal, whether or not they derive support

B.21-4
 from the proposed budget. Postdoctoral fellows and students need not be
named.
• A sunset plan that ensures:
o Citizen scientist volunteers are informed about the results when the project is
completed and are provided opportunities to be retained as part of the larger
NASA citizen science community.
o Inactive websites include a statement: “This site is no longer actively
updated.” and provide a link to the project’s results and publications and a link
to at least one other relevant NASA citizen science project.
Superseding the ROSES default, a Current and Pending Support statement must be
included for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of committed time to the project.
Historically, proposals that address a single well-focused compelling science objective
with a limited set of specific science questions have been more successful at
constructing methodologies that are demonstrably feasible and appropriate, as
compared with those that propose to address a large number of science questions or
that are directed at an overly-broad science topic.
Budgets must include funds for at least one team representative to participate annually
in the annual SMD "Building the NASA Citizen Science Community" meeting. Budgets
generally do not include salary for citizen scientists/volunteers. However, since training
and communicating with citizen scientists is a necessary component of a citizen science
project, projects should include resources for accomplishing these tasks. For example,
funds may be used for the development of training programs, website content, graphic
design, newsletters, or tutorials.
All proposals must include a data management plan of up to 2 pages immediately
following the references and citations for the S/T/M Section. The required content for
the data management plan is described in Section 1.6 of B.1, The Heliophysics
Research Program Overview and Section II.c of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation. Proposals must describe a strategy for monitoring data quality and
consistency throughout the lifetime of the project including beta testing the project on a
group of citizen scientist volunteers before launch to ensure data quality and positive
participant experience. Proposed work must commit to the use of open-source formats
and metadata standards to increase interoperability with other Heliophysics observation
data. Additional details and context can be found in the following resources: the
Heliophysics Science Data Management Policy, NASA ESDS Citizen Science Data
Working Group White Paper by the NASA Citizen Science Data Working group, and the
NASA Citizen Science Program Handbook. See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-
proposals for the DMP template.
2.4.1 Step-2 Evaluation Criteria
Compliant Step-2 proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria as defined in the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers and as specified in Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation. These criteria are Relevance, Merit, and Cost reasonableness.
Clarifications and additions specific to this program element are listed below.

B.21-5
The evaluation of relevance will include:
• Relevance to and priority within the H-CSI program based on criteria discussed
in Section 1.
The evaluation of merit will include:
• The importance of carrying out the science investigation now.
• The extent to which the team has the expertise needed to foster broad
participation, communication, and dissemination of results (e.g., two-way
communication between volunteers and NASA-funded scientists, with scientists
giving feedback to and receiving feedback from the volunteers).
• The effective utilization of existing platforms and/or existing enthusiast
communities to maximize collective impact; and/or development of new platforms
and/or building of new communities
3. Available Funds
It is expected that there will be approximately ~$0.3M available in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023
to support new Heliophysics Citizen Science Investigations selected through this
program element. Annual funding is expected to fall into the ~$120-160K range per
investigation.
4. Award Types
The Heliophysics CSI program will award funds through three vehicles: (1) grants, (2)
interagency transfers, and (3) awards to NASA Centers. The Heliophysics CSI program
is not expected to award contracts as it would not be appropriate for the nature of the
work solicited.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first $300K, see Section 3.
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~2
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for full Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of
6 months after proposal due date.
investigation
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of 15 pages
proposal

B.21-6
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of Step 1
and Step 2 proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of Step 1
and Step-2 proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Program Officer/Points of Contact
concerning this program element,
both of whom share this mailing
address:
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
This program is relevant to the Heliophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See Section 2.4 of this program element, Table
1 of ROSES-2022 and Section IV of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, and
Section 3 of the Guidebook for Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-HCSI
Susanna Finn
Telephone: (202) 390-7575
Email: susanna.c.finn@nasa.gov
Janet Kozyra
Telephone: (202) 358-1258
Email: janet.kozyra@nasa.gov
B.21-7
B.22 HELIOPHYSICS SPACE WEATHER CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE
NOTICE: Amended August 1, 2022. The due date for Step-2 proposals
has been delayed. Step-2 proposals are now due September 20, 2022.
May 17, 2022. This amendment releases the final text for this program
element, which had been listed as "TBD". 6-page Step-1 proposals are
due June 21, 2022, and 25-page Step-2 proposals are due August 25,
2022.
This program element will use a two-step submission process, see
Section 5. NASA may request clarification on specific, potential major
weaknesses that have been identified, see Section 7.2.
This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan Pilot
Program; see Section 3.9. This required Inclusion Plan section will not
be part of the adjectival rating, nor will it inform selection
recommendations for this opportunity.
All proposers are to use the standard Heliophysics template at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-
appendix-b-roses-proposals for Current and Pending Support for the
PI and all Co-Is, regardless of time commitment. Use of the DMP
template at is encouraged.
A FAQ will be posted on the NSPIRES page for this program element,
under "Other documents".
1. Introduction
The Space Weather Centers of Excellence (SWxC) element is part of an integrated
multi-agency initiative to advance the science and technology of space weather. The
SWxC program element is envisioned as supporting multi-institution, multi-/inter-/trans-
disciplinary collaborations (hereinafter Centers) that address grand challenge goals of
space weather, and which are ambitious in scope and transformative in nature. This
program is intended to support research that cannot be effectively done by individual
investigators or small teams, instead requiring the synergistic, coordinated efforts of a
research center. With this motivation, this SWxC program element takes advantage of
lessons learned from ongoing and past science centers, the growing body of
information on team science, and a coordinated national effort to improve space
weather capabilities and preparedness.
Note: In this document, capital-C "Center" refers specifically to SWxC awardees as
described above (unless it occurs in a proper name), while small-c "center" refers more
generally to collaborative research activities.
2. Space Weather Centers of Excellence
2.1 Challenges and Goals
As described in the 2019 National Space Weather Strategy and Action Plan (NSWSAP),
"Space weather comprises a set of naturally occurring phenomena that have the
potential to adversely affect critical functions, assets, and operations in space and on
Earth. Extreme space weather events can degrade or damage critical infrastructures,

B.22-1
which may result in direct or cascading failures across key services such as electric
power, communications, water supply, healthcare, and transportation. Preparing for
space weather events will help protect infrastructure and activities vital to national
security and the economy of the United States." This was further emphasized by the
2020 Promoting Research and Observations of Space Weather to Improve the
Forecasting of Tomorrow (PROSWIFT) act, which categorically states that "[s]pace
weather phenomena pose a significant threat to ground-based and space-based critical
infrastructure, modern technological systems, and humans working in space."
The physical processes that drive space weather are in the domain of Solar and Space
Physics, and the complex interactions between the regions studied in these disciplines
(Sun, Heliosphere, Geospace, the Earth’s upper atmosphere) give rise to the various
phenomena that are collectively regarded as hazardous space weather. The discipline
of Space Weather differentiates itself from the broader field of Solar and Space Physics
in at least two key respects: its interest in developing capabilities for robust and
quantifiably accurate now- and fore-casts and its concern with impacts on humans or
human-made systems such as power grids, satellites, radio communication, and
precision navigation and timing. For this reason, Centers are expected to:
• focus on developing novel scientific or technological approaches to solve
ambitious and extremely challenging problems whose solution will directly
improve our ability to forecast and prepare for space weather hazards; and
• directly engage with the communities, both civil and commercial, affected by
space weather as well as entities, such as – but not limited to – NASA SRAG,
NOAA SWPC, and elements of the DoD, who are responsible for providing
forecasts of space weather ("operational agencies").
2.2 Operating Principles
The program described in this Program Element combines inputs from a variety of
sources, including: (1) the Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP) of the
National Academy of Sciences, (2) the NASA Heliophysics Advisory Committee, (3) the
Heliophysics community through a previously released RFI NNH17ZDA008L, (4) the
NASA Space Weather Gap Analysis (hereafter Gap Analysis), and (5) documents
describing the practices and structure of other NASA and NSF Center programs
augmented by discussion with a variety of center directors. Much of the information
from sources (1)-(3) is contained in the following reports:
• Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society,
• NASA Heliophysics Science and Technology Roadmap 2014-2033, and
• Committee on Solar and Space Physics: Heliophysics Science Centers,
The following basic principles underlying the design of the Centers, derived from these
sources, are:
• Transformative results – that is, results which lead to a substantial and lasting
change in conduct, culture, or understanding – are best pursued by:
o Openly competing science objectives;
o Giving proposers freedom to define tools, methods, team composition, and
management; and

B.22-2
 o Requiring metrics and evaluating them as part of the proposal selection
process.
• Centers play a major role in enabling interdisciplinary science and facilitating the
development and adoption of innovative approaches.
• Centers provide valuable scientific collaboration opportunities for the broader
community (e.g., visiting scientist programs, workshops).
• Research in Centers has a strong potential for positive societal impacts.
3. Foundational Elements
As discussed in the previous sections, Centers are envisioned as multi-institution, multi-
/inter-/trans- disciplinary collaborations that address grand challenge goals of space
weather, and which are ambitious in scope and transformative in nature. It is expected
that there are many different areas of focus and concepts of operation about which a
successful Center could be organized, and these details are best decided by the
proposer. However, certain elements are expected of any SWxC proposal, including:
• Synergistic Research
• High Functioning Team Formation
• Effective Leadership and Management
• Collaboration and Community Engagement
• User Community Engagement
• Operational Agency Involvement
• Effective Data Utilization and Management
• Appropriate Computing Infrastructure
• A Culture of Diversity and Inclusion
The remainder of Section 3 provides in-depth discussion of these elements and, where
appropriate, how they should be addressed.
3.1 Synergistic Research
Centers are built around a compelling research challenge whose solution lays the
foundation for a significant advance in space weather operational capabilities. The
proposed research must be ambitious and potentially transformative. Research topics
are selected through open competition based on their significance, alignment with 2013
NAS Decadal Survey goals, the Gap Analysis, and relevance to national space weather
priorities as outlined in the NSWSAP and PROSWIFT. Many of the most exciting
questions at the very edge of current understanding are strongly interdisciplinary in
scope and require the merging of perspectives from different parts of the heliophysics
community and possibly other discipline areas. A lesson learned from existing center
programs is that "[m]ajor advances occur when scientists who would not normally work
together are brought together." The SWxC program is intended to support science that
cannot be effectively done by individual investigators or small teams, but requires the
synergistic, coordinated efforts of a research center. It is important that the proposal
provides adequate justification for a center-based approach and the potential for
synergy is likely to be an important piece of this.

B.22-3
A distinguishing feature of this SWxC program compared to other areas of the
Heliophysics R&A program is its emphasis on the foundational integration of Research-
to-Operations (R2O) and Operations-to-Research (O2R) activities to enable the
development of improved space weather capabilities. Effectively now- and fore-casting
space weather and its drivers may require contributions from a variety of areas,
including theoretical and numerical models based on fundamental physics equations,
coordinated analysis from ground- and space-based observatories, and data-driven
models built using machine learning architectures. Although improved physical
understanding of the Sun-Earth system is desirable, the emphasis of any Center should
not solely be on developing deeper understanding of physical processes or system-
level dynamics; rather, Centers should develop improved physical understanding so
that it can be further leveraged to enable the development of improved space weather
capabilities. Thus, all proposals should describe the expected applications of proposed
research, provide a detailed list of anticipated milestones, and include appropriate
quantitative metrics by which their progress may be assessed at least annually.
Developing a distinct and distinctive science portfolio is essential for any Center.
However, members of the team requesting SWxC funding may already have, or choose
to apply for, funding outside the context of the Center. Overlap in focus of existing
grants with the Center’s overarching science goals can provide leveraged benefits if the
research is synergistic and not duplicative. If an existing grant is related to the
objectives of the proposed Center, it is critical to demonstrate in the proposal that the
research for which SWxC funds are requested is connected to the collaborative grant
activity (both Center and individual grants) in such a way as to foster progress that
would not be realized in the absence of the synergy provided by the Center effort. If
members of the science team apply for additional support from other programs after the
Center is operative, these proposals are required to demonstrate that this new work is
unique and not already funded by the SWxC program.
As noted in a 2003 report of the National Academies, "successful transitions require an
understanding of the importance and risks of transition, the development of appropriate
transition plans, adequate resources for the transitions, and continuous communication
and feedback between the research and operational communities." A successful Center
will demonstrate an understanding of these challenges as well as a familiarity with the
relevant operational communities and the approaches that have been used in space
weather and related communities to successfully transition research products into an
operational environment. The Center should leverage technological advances in data
sharing, cloud computing, and group collaboration to seamlessly integrate activities that
support R2O and O2R into its activity plan. Additional information and resources related
to R2O/O2R can be found in the recently-released report Space Weather Research-to-
Operations and Operations-to-Research Framework from the interagency Space
Weather Operations, Research, and Mitigation subcommittee.
3.2 High-Functioning Team Formation
Research efforts that span a broad range in size and scope contribute significantly to
pushing forward frontiers in Space Weather. Individual investigators and small research
groups have always provided a large component of this progress and continue to do so.
However, as knowledge of the space environment grows so does appreciation of its

B.22-4
complexity. Progress on some of the most compelling questions draws on the
perspectives of multiple discipline areas and requires the close interaction between
team members, which may include modelers, theoreticians, laboratory experimentalists,
computer scientists, and observers. Coherent attacks on these scientific frontiers
require multi-/inter-/trans- disciplinary teams and more resources than are normally
available to individual investigators or small groups. Such activities may take new
research directions and involve considerable risk. They combine research tools such as
models, observational techniques, high performance computing, and others in
synergistic ways to achieve the desired outcome. Centers will facilitate the formation of
the needed diverse teams, supporting multi-/inter-/trans- disciplinary science in a way
that is uniquely cross-cutting.
Proposers are advised to read in detail the NRC report Enhancing the Effectiveness of
Team Science. The NRC report provides a series of recommendations aimed at
researchers, center managers, and funding agencies that address "human-centered"
challenges associated with team science centers.
3.3 Effective Leadership and Management
Effective Leadership and Management describes the skills needed by Center leaders
including intellectual vision and leadership, effective management of Center activities,
successful entrepreneurial experience, a track record of delivering results, and the
ability to communicate clearly and effectively with diverse audiences, such as team
members, sponsors, partners, host institutions, stakeholders, press and media, and the
public. Effective Center leadership and management teams may, for example:
• Empower all team members to contribute regardless of status and power
differences;
• Establish a culture of deep collaboration and inclusion;
• Build consensus around goals and problem definition;
• Facilitate communication to ensure a common understanding; and
• Resolve conflicts and build trust.
It is rare that a single person will have all these attributes; thus, a strong leader will need
to assemble an executive team that covers this broad spectrum of skills.
3.4 Collaboration and Community Engagement
Centers are encouraged to take advantage of the opportunity to collaborate broadly with
academia, commercial entities, government laboratories, and international
organizations. There is no minimum or maximum number of collaborators that may
participate in the Center, but if they are expected to contribute significantly to research
objectives within the Center, the proposal must provide sufficient evidence of a viable
collaboration. Because of the unique nature of the Center activity, it is desirable that the
lessons learned by its scientists be broadly shared with the larger Heliophysics
community.
In addition to engaging with the broader community, Centers can also be major
attractors for faculty at research-based institutions as well as undergraduate and
graduate students. Centers are expected to provide an exceptionally stimulating

B.22-5
environment so that students and/or other team members will benefit from interactions
with a large, often multi-/inter-/trans- disciplinary, group of scientists at all career levels.
Because of the applied nature of space weather, it is important for Centers to be
engaged beyond traditional research communities. As noted in the 2013 Heliophysics
Decadal Survey, “[t]ransitioning to operations requires time, resources, a dedicated
effort, and mind-set different than that brought to the problem by the research
community… a multifaceted program is needed to transition research to operations
more effectively by leveraging labor from different agencies, universities, and industry”.
3.5 User Community Engagement
Because space weather is concerned not only with fundamental physical processes but
also their impacts on humans and technology, Centers should seek to involve members
of groups who routinely deal with the impacts of space weather. Ideally this involvement
will be structured to enable the Center to make use of data from or about the systems
that are impacted so as to facilitate better understanding of what causes these impacts
and enable them to develop better approaches for prediction and mitigation. Note that
these communities may include non-commercial and non-governmental groups
including those involved in Citizen Science; however, it is expected that Citizen Science
activities will not be the only way in which Centers engage with user communities.
3.6 Operational Agency Involvement
The goal of any Center is to solve an outstanding problem in space weather. Such
solutions are naturally of interest to operational agencies such as NASA SRAG, NOAA,
and the DoD. Because of the duration of time and level of support to be provided to
Centers, it is expected that research products from the Center will reach a sufficiently
high level of readiness (e.g., TRL=5/AUL=6/RL=5) that will enable them to begin the
process of being adopted by an operational agency.
To ensure that the research products are relevant to operations as well as to streamline
later adoption, it is critical that representatives from operational agencies are engaged
throughout the lifetime of the Center. For this reason, all Centers will include a member
from an operational agency who will serve as a Technology and Transition Readiness
(TTR) advisor.
It will be the TTR advisor’s duty to help guide the Center and its researchers in the
maturation of their research and to assist in monitoring the progress of the Center’s
research towards its proposed goals and milestones. The TTR advisor will provide
NASA with an annual assessment of the Center’s R2O and O2R activities and its
overall progress, and this assessment will contribute to the Center’s annual
assessment. The TTR advisor may participate in Center research activities if they are
permitted by their organization to do so, but the success of the Center’s research
should not depend upon contributions from the TTR advisor.
The proposing team is not responsible for identifying an appropriate TTR advisor, but
the proposal should clearly identify which organizations could be transition partners for
their research products, as this is necessary to demonstrate relevance to this program
element. NASA, in consultation with its agency partners, will identify a TTR advisor to
work with each team whose proposal is selected for funding. Suggestions from the

B.22-6
proposing team will be considered during the TTR advisor selection process, but final
decisions will be made by NASA based upon technical and programmatic
considerations. Because the TTR advisor is being provided by NASA, the proposing
team is not responsible for supporting their effort and this role does not need to be
accounted for in the proposed budget.
Note: Due to the overarching goal of technology transition and the expected degree of
government involvement in the activities of any Center, including the provision the TTR
advisor, all SWxC awards will be made as cooperative agreements rather than grants.
See Sections 7.2 and 8 for further details.
3.7 Effective Data Utilization and Management
Centers must provide a detailed plan for data sharing and preservation to enable
validation of results, or a plan for how results could be validated if data are not shared
or preserved. This plan must be included as part of the Data Management Plan (DMP).
The DMP describes how all Center researchers will store, access, share and archive
data (including source code), with emphasis on data sharing across collaborative
teams. This is a particularly challenging prospect as the Center expands, so proposals
should address features such as how each team member will gain access to data in
real time, how data will be archived and validated and how, as the team expands, new
members will be integrated into the data management plan in ways that enhance
collaboration and synergy. New approaches to data management are encouraged.
The DMP must be included in a special section of the proposal entitled "Data
Management Plan" immediately following the Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M)
section. The DMP may not exceed two pages in length and, when preparing their DMP,
proposers are strongly encouraged to use the Heliophysics DMP template, which is
available as a downloadable docx file. Additional information on DMP preparation can
be found in Section 1.6 of B.1 Heliophysics Research Program Overview for ROSES-
2022.
Proposed research must be achievable with current publicly available data sets alone.
All required data sets must be accessible in a publicly available archive at least 30 days
prior to the full proposal submission deadline. Because of the extended duration of the
Center activity, it is expected that new data sets will become available during the
lifetime of the Center and these may be incorporated into research activities as
appropriate, but the success of the Center may not depend on the existence or
acquisition of data sets that are not publicly available at the time of proposal.
Because Centers are intended to develop capabilities that support the whole of the
national space weather enterprise, it may in be appropriate for a Center to engage with
partners who can provide limited access (e.g., proprietary or classified) data. Because it
is important that NASA-funded research be as open and transparent as possible, and in
order to increase the impact of unique assets, proposers who wish to make use of
limited access data sets are encouraged to propose to develop an open data product
through program element B.12 Heliophysics Data Environment Enhancements.

B.22-7
3.8 Appropriate Computing Infrastructure
Rapid advancements in computational capabilities are a potentially important resource
for Centers if NASA can take advantage of the developments in synergistic
communities to develop further and modernize the Heliophysics and Space Weather
computing frontier.
High-end computing (HEC) resources enable research at scientific frontiers that would
otherwise be impossible. Because this is a limited resource, proposals must discuss
access to time on HEC machines and expertise to optimize its usage if this is a needed
resource.
NASA maintains two major computing facilities – the NASA Center for Climate
Simulation (NCCS) at the Goddard Space Flight Center, and the NASA Advanced
Supercomputing (NAS) facility at the Ames Research Center. If the program specific
data question on the use of NASA-provided HEC is answered in the affirmative, an
appendix document must be provided which is discussed in Section 1(d) of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation (SoS).
As an alternative to traditional HEC systems, many organizations including NASA and
NOAA are now exploring the use of commercial cloud-based computing. Properly
utilized, such infrastructure can facilitate data-sharing and open collaboration. If
appropriate to the proposed effort, utilization of such computing resources is
encouraged; however, any Center that proposes to make use of commercial cloud-
based computing resources must provide an estimate of associated resource
requirements and cost.
3.9 A Culture of Diversity and Inclusion
Inclusion is a core NASA value. By fostering an atmosphere of inclusion and respect for
all, we value the strengths afforded by both our commonalities and differences with an
aim to fully engage talents, ideas, and perspectives. Projects that offer an opportunity to
use the nation’s diverse talent pool and increase its participation in Heliophysics and
Space Weather are strongly encouraged. Diversity is defined broadly as the unique
characteristics, such as different background and perspectives, diversity of thought and
life experiences, that define us as individuals and shape our workplace. These include,
but are not limited to, career stage, disability, ethnicity, institutional background, gender,
geography, race, and sexual orientation.
In support of NASA’s core value of Inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate’s
Science Plan Strategy 4.1, the SWxC program requires that all Step-2 proposals
provide an inclusion plan. The inclusion plan may be up to two pages in length and
must be placed immediately after the DMP, see Table B.22-2.
The inclusion plan must address:
• Creating and sustaining a positive and inclusive working environment for those
carrying out the proposed investigation, and
• Contributions the proposed investigation will make to the training and
development of a diverse and inclusive scientific workforce.

B.22-8
The plan should be particular to the Center, and if it includes a restatement of policies of
the host institution(s), it should also provide a clear discussion of how these policies
connect to the proposed Center.
The inclusion plan will be evaluated for adequacy and completeness. The evaluation of
the inclusion plan incorporates the following factors:
• Does the inclusion plan adequately communicate the goal of a positive and
inclusive working environment for the investigation team?
• Does the inclusion plan provide adequate processes for creating and sustaining
a positive and inclusive working environment for the investigation team, and are
these processes likely to be successful in achieving the goal?
• Does the inclusion plan adequately describe the contribution of the proposed
investigation to the training and development of a diverse and inclusive
workforce?
• Does the inclusion plan provide an adequate plan for achieving the identified
contribution and is the plan likely to be successful in realizing the identified
contribution?
A resource that some proposers may find useful is the NASA MSI Exchange at
https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
Feedback will be provided to the proposers as part of the panel review summaries. The
feedback will not contribute to the adjectival ratings or selection recommendations in the
current ROSES cycle, but may in future cycles. SMD plans to invite comments
regarding this pilot process from reviewers and proposers after the review is completed.
If additional funding is needed to implement the inclusion plan, it must be stated and
included and justified in the budget.
Note that even though the assessment of the inclusion plan will not be part of the
adjectival grade for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals, funding
will be released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory inclusion plan is
approved by NASA.
4. Eligibility and PI Requirements Information
4.1 What Types of Organizations May Submit Proposals?
To be eligible the proposal must be submitted by a U.S. organization excluding NASA
field centers. JPL is eligible to submit. Collaborations between institutions of different
types are encouraged, keeping in mind that NASA is seeking diversity of thinking and
new approaches that could lead to exciting new solutions and advances. Collaboration
by non-U.S. organizations in proposed efforts is permitted. However, please refer to
Section III(c) of the ROSES SoS and/or the ROSES FAQs on foreign participation in
general and the ROSES China FAQ regarding restrictions that apply to People’s
Republic of China in particular.
Only organizations that previously submitted a Step-1 proposal can submit Step-2
proposals (see Section 6.1).
While more than one institution may participate in a Step-1 or Step-2 proposal, a single
institution must accept overall management responsibility for the Center. The proposal

B.22-9
can be submitted by only one institution with funding provided to non-governmental
institutions through subawards – see Section IV(d) of the ROSES SoS. The use of
separately submitted collaborative proposals is not permitted.
4.2 Who May Serve as PI/Co-I?
Researchers may serve as the Principal Investigator (PI) for Centers, provided they are
affiliated with an eligible organization (see above). The proposal PI becomes the Center
Director. Because of the direct funding available to the NASA field centers, NASA civil
servants may serve as Co-Investigators (Co-Is), but not as PI or Project Manager (see
Section 4.3 for description of this role). Co-Is are required in the institutions with
subawards on the SWxC proposal if they are responsible for leading and managing
major elements of the research. Co-Is are also permitted from the lead institution.
An investigator may participate as PI on only one Step-1 and one Step-2 proposal
submitted in response to this program element. See also Section 4.3 regarding time
commitment. A Co-I on one proposal may also participate in other proposals.
Although NASA field centers may not propose to this opportunity, researchers at these
institutions may participate in Centers that are proposed by other eligible institutions.
However, to ensure that the Centers remain focused on the broader Heliophysics
community, no more than 20% of any SWxC award may be used to support activities at
NASA field centers, including subcontracts.
4.3 Researcher Time and Commitment
Serving as the Center Director requires scientific leadership and vision. To ensure that
adequate time is dedicated to the oversight of the Center, the proposal evaluation will
include a careful examination of the time commitment of the PI, who is expected to
dedicate at least 30% FTE per year.
Furthermore, it is required that a Project Manager (PM) be identified on the proposal
cover page and assigned the role "Project Manager" in NSPIRES. The role of the PM is
to help the PI (Director) manage and administer the Center, and the time dedicated by
the PM must be appropriate to the scope of the proposed Center, at least 25% FTE per
year. The Project Manager should have demonstrated expertise in project management
and the coordination of multi-institution scientific collaborations.
All Co-Investigators (Co-Is) must have an identified substantial role in the proposed
effort and are expected to dedicate at least 10% FTE per year. Team members
committing a significant part of their professional effort should take this into account if
participating as Co-Is in more than one SWxC submission. Reviewers will evaluate the
qualifications of the team and the resources available to the project (including
researcher time and commitment).
5. Proposal Preparation and Submission
The submission of proposals in response to this program element is a two-step process.
Proposers not already familiar with the two-step process are strongly encouraged to
read Section IV(b)vii of the ROSES-2022 SoS and Section 1.3 of B.1 Heliophysics
Research Program Overview. For this Program Element, the Step-1 proposal is 8 pages
with 6 pages devoted to the S/T/M section (see Table B.22-1 of this program element

B.22-10
below). Unlike an NOI, an on-time Step-1 proposal is mandatory; they will be treated as
normal proposals for the purposes of the SMD Policy on Late Proposals.
Step-1 proposals will be checked for compliance. Those that are non-compliant may be
returned without review. The PIs of Step-1 proposals will be encouraged to, or
discouraged from, submitting Step-2 proposals based on internal review. Proposers will
receive generic but not personalized feedback in response to their Step-1 proposal.
Common requirements for all ROSES elements and proposals are found in the SoS and
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the order of precedence for proposers is the
following: ROSES Element B.22 (this document) takes precedence followed by B.1
Heliophysics Research Program Overview, followed by the ROSES SoS and, finally, the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Proposers should be familiar with all these resources.
5.1 Step-1 Proposal Preparation
The Step-1 proposal includes a Proposal Cover Page and proposal attachment. The
Step-1 Proposal pdf uploaded must include the components listed in Table B.22-1 in the
order specified.
Table B.22-1. Step-1 Proposal Contents and Page Limits
Section Proposal Section Maximum Page Length
S1 Executive Summary 1
S2 Summary Chart 1
S3 Scientific/Technical/Management 6
Section
S4 References and Citations as needed

Note the following:

• The title given to the Step-1 proposal must be descriptive of the proposed
research. Center names may be used as the title, provided that the name is
appropriately descriptive. It is recommended that clarity of a Center’s purpose be
prioritized over potential acronyms when choosing a name.
• Letters of commitment are not required for Step-1 proposals.
• Step-1 proposals are likely to be evaluated internally by NASA civil servants who
are solar and space physics reviewers with broad knowledge but not necessarily
domain expertise on the topic of the Center. It is therefore important that they be
written to be comprehensible to these reviewers and that proposals emphasize
impact on space weather in a broad context.

5.1.1 Executive Summary (S1)

The Executive Summary is limited to one page and should include: Vision, research
objectives, impact, relevance, and impact broadening activities.
5.1.2 Summary Chart (S2)
The Summary Chart, shown in Figure 1, below, is intended to provide a quick sense of
the proposed Center and should not require information from the Step-1 or Step-2

B.22-11
proposal to be understood. It should not include any proprietary or sensitive data as
NASA may use all or some of the information on the summary chart, including images,
for communications about selections (e.g., press releases). Note: Step-2 proposals are
permitted to make minor changes to the summary chart submitted in Step-1. A template
for the Summary Chart file is available as a downloadable pptx file.
Figure B.22-1. Format for Required Summary Chart (S2)

5.1.3 Scientific/Technical/Management Section (S3)

Proposers are encouraged to read the Science/Technical/Management Section
requirements for the Step-2 proposal (Section 5.2.4) when preparing this section for the
Step-1 proposal. The project description should address the following points:
• Center Overview including the Center vision, a discussion of its potential for
transformative impact in Space Weather, potential for synergy within the Center,
key personnel and organizations, and, if known at this time, collaborators,
international and industrial partners;
• Research Plan including the group of initiating investigators and an outline of the
research goals; and
• Summary of plan for Center management.
5.1.4 References and Citations (S4)
All references and citations given in the Technical and Management Section must be
provided using easily understood, standard abbreviations for journals and complete
names for books. It is highly preferred but not required that these references include the
full title of the cited paper or report. Only the most relevant and impactful references
should be referenced in the Technical and Management Section and provided in this
section of the Step-1 proposal.

B.22-12
5.2 Step-2 Proposal Preparation
Submission of a Step-2 proposal is open only to those who have submitted a Step-1
proposal, but even Step-2 proposals that have been discouraged may be submitted.
Step-2 proposals submitted in response to this program must originate from Principal
Investigators who submitted a Step-1 proposal. Proposals are likely to be read and
evaluated by solar and space physics reviewers with broad knowledge but not
necessarily domain expertise on the topic of the Center at some stage of the review
process. It is therefore particularly important that they be written to emphasize their
impact on Space Weather in a broad context. Proposers are strongly encouraged to
consult the proposal preparation and submission instructions in the ROSES SoS.
Proposals not compliant with the proposal preparation guidelines, as supplemented
by the following instructions, may be returned without review. Proposers should be
aware that between Step-1 and Step-2, neither a change in PI nor a change in
research topic is permitted.
Table B.22-2, below, shows the proposal content and page limits. Note that additional
documents, such as HEC requests or the total budget file, are to be uploaded
separately.
Table B.22-2. Step-2 Proposal Contents and Page Limits

Section Proposal Section Maximum Page Length

S1 Executive Summary 1
S2 Table of Contents 1
S3 Summary Chart 1
S4 Science, Technical, and Management 25
Section
S5 Data Management Plan 2
S6 Inclusion Plan 2
S7 References and Citations As needed
S8 Biographical Sketches for PI, PM, and 2 pages for each
Co-Is
S9 Current and Pending Support As needed
S10 Supplemental Documents As needed
S11 Facilities, Equipment and Other As needed
Resources
S12 Budget Justification Plan/Cost Proposal As needed

The components of the Step-2 proposal are laid out in the following twelve subsections.

B.22-13
 5.2.1 Executive Summary (S1)
The Executive Summary is limited to one page and should include: Vision, research
objectives, impact, relevance, and impact broadening activities.
5.2.2 Table of Contents (S2)
A brief table of contents provides a guide to the organization and contents of the
proposal. This page may not contain any information that is necessary for the proper
evaluation of the proposal, including but not limited to material identified as belonging in
other sections, definitions, and acronyms. This section should include all items listed in
Table B.23-2.
5.2.3 Summary Chart (S3)
The Summary Chart should be the same as that submitted as part of the Step-1
proposal, although it is permitted to make minor updates or clarifications that do not
substantively change the proposed Center. See Section 5.1.2 for format and template.
5.2.4 Science/Technical/Management Section (S4)
The Science/Technical/Management Section must be 25 pages or fewer in total with
standard ROSES formatting rules. This page limit includes illustrations, tables, figures,
and all sub-sections and must contain the following elements:
• Center overview, including Center vision and a justification of its potential for
transformative impact in space weather.
• Center research plan, a narrative containing the following:
o A description of the research proposed and anticipated outcome;
o A demonstration of the relevance of the proposed research to space weather;
o A discussion of how R2O and O2R will be incorporated into Center activities;
o A brief description of the contributions to be made to the Center by the PI,
PM, and each Co-I; and
o A justification for why the center-based approach is appropriate.
• Center Development and Management Plan, a narrative discussing the following:
o The roles of internal leadership and how decisions will be made regarding the
project;
o How the Center’s strategic plan will be developed and implemented;
o How individual research efforts will be integrated synergistically to achieve
the Center’s vision;
o How the Center will coordinate efforts and partnerships, including how new
members of the Center will be identified and integrated; and
o How the research and broadening impact programs will be monitored,
evaluated, and altered as needed.
Proposals should demonstrate, either directly or integrated within the narrative, that the
foundational elements of a Center (discussed in Section 3) are present.
5.2.5 Data Management Plan (S5)
The DMP is included in the proposal document in a special two-page section, entitled
"Data Management Plan" immediately following the S/T/M portion of the proposal. The
contents of the DMP are discussed in Section 3.7.

B.22-14
Note: Data management at the Centers does not replace or supplant mission data
archives that are in place or planned (see also Section 8.5).
5.2.6 Inclusion Plan (S6)
The Inclusion Plan describes how the Center will foster an atmosphere of inclusion and
respect that invites participation from all members of the nation's diverse pool of talent.
Details of what should be contained in this plan are provided in Section 3.9.
5.2.7 References and Citations (S7)
All references and citations given in the Science, Technical, and Management Section
must be provided using easily understood, standard abbreviations for journals and
complete names for books. It is preferred but not required that these references include
the full title of the cited paper or report (Section 3.14 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers). References Co-authored by two or more proposal investigators should be
marked with an asterisk (*).
5.2.8 Biographical Sketches for PI, PM, and Co-Is (S8)
The PI must include a biographical sketch (not to exceed two pages) that includes their
professional experiences and positions and a bibliography of recent publications,
especially those relevant to the proposed investigation. The PI’s and PM’s biographical
sketches must clearly show how they meets the requirements for Center Director and
Project Manager, respectively. A one- to two-page sketch for each Co-I must also be
included. For the PI, PM, and all Co-Is, the biographical sketch must include a
description of scientific, technical, and management performance on relevant prior
research efforts. Those participants who will play critical management or technical roles
in the proposed investigation must demonstrate that their qualifications, capabilities,
and experience are appropriate to provide confidence that the proposed objectives will
be achieved.
5.2.9 Current and Pending Support (S9)
Proposers must follow the current and pending requirements provided in Table 1 of the
ROSES-2022 SoS. Proposers must use the standard Heliophysics template for Current
and Pending Support at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-
division-appendix-b-roses-proposals for the PI and all Co-Is, regardless of time
commitment. Intellectual and materials overlap between any Federally funded projects
or projects submitted for Federal funding and the proposed research must be clarified
by discussing the relationship between this proposed project and each of the other
potentially overlapping Federal awards. For pending research proposals involving
substantially the same kind of research as that being proposed to NASA in this
proposal, the proposing PI must notify the NASA Program Officer identified in Section 9
of this program element immediately of any successful proposals that are awarded any
time between the proposal due date and the date that NASA’s selections are
announced. Failure to appropriately notify the NASA Program Officer of Current and
Pending support may result in the disqualification of the proposal.

B.22-15
 5.2.10 Supplemental Documents (S10)
Letters of Support from the owner of any necessary facility or resource that is not under
the direct control of the PI or a Co-I may be included as needed.
5.2.11 Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources (S11)
This section catalogs the resources and facilities (including laboratories, computational
facilities, data infrastructure and other tools that support collaboration) that will be made
available to the project, including resources and facilities accessed through
collaboration (Section 3.18 and Appendix C in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers).
5.2.12 Budget Justification Plan/Cost Proposal (S12)
The aggregate five-year budget for a Center is expected to be ~$10M but should be
commensurate with the scope of the proposed effort. The budget should include funding
for Center development activities (website, strategic planning, travel etc.) in addition to
research and broader impact activities. The annual budgets may vary in amount. A
detailed budget justification from the lead and each Co-I institution must document
proposed expenses. Proposers must follow the budget requirements (e.g., redaction,
separate total budget upload) see Section IV(b)(iii) and Table 1 of the ROSES SoS and
examples on the SARA website. Proposal funding restrictions are detailed in Section
IV(d) of the SoS.
6. Proposal Evaluation Criteria
6.1 Step-1 Evaluation Criteria
Step-1 proposals are required in this ROSES program element in order to make an
initial assessment of relevance and feasibility. The evaluation focuses on the case
made for the:
• Anticipated impact of the Center,
• Space weather relevance of the proposed Center activities,
• Potential for significant progress on the primary space weather challenge,
• The effective integration of R2O and O2R into the proposed plan of work,
• Presence and appropriateness of quantifiable metrics by which the progress and
success of the effort may be evaluated, and
• Necessity for a center to support and coordinate the effort.
With regards to justifying the necessity of a center, proposals should demonstrate that
(1) the scope of effort is beyond that which could be feasibly supported or enabled
using a collection of smaller research awards and (2) that the activities being supported
require a level of coordination amongst researchers and institutions that exceeds what
is typical. Thus, the Center should not be defined as a set of thematically related but
potentially separable activities, but rather as a focused effort to achieve a larger goal
through strategically coordinated and mutually interdependent efforts.
6.2 Step-2 Evaluation Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated according to the three criteria (Relevance, Merit, and Cost)
as described in Section V(a) of the ROSES SoS. However, the following additional or

B.22-16
modified factors will supplement and clarify the definition of Merit found in Appendix D of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
The evaluation of the Scientific Quality factor of the Guidebook definition of Merit will
include:
• The extent to which the scientific vision is shown to be commensurate with a
center investment;
• The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the state
of the art in space weather, including appropriate leveraging of available
knowledge and technologies outside of the Center, and makes a case that
significant advances are both necessary and possible;
• The extent to which the potential for transformative impact in space weather is
demonstrated; and
The evaluation of the Overall Technical Quality factor of the Guidebook definition of
Merit will include:
• The extent to which the research plan is comprehensive in laying out
interdependent research objectives with clear research goals, and the likelihood
it will lead to significant progress in overcoming well-defined critical gaps or
barriers to space weather capabilities.
• The extent to which the Center effectively supports R2O and O2R into its
activities;
• The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the
primary risks, and the mitigation strategies to address them.
• The extent to which the Center Development and Management Plan (see
Section 5.2.4) fosters sound decisions regarding the project, including:
o the roles of internal leadership and any external advisory groups;
o the ability to carry out careful internal evaluations of research activities;
o promotion and evaluation of synergy in Center activities;
o development and implementation of strategic plans (see Section 8.3.1);
o the ability to initiate new lines of research and terminate support for lower
priority efforts;
o communication throughout the Center and with partners; and
o the extent to which the milestones are realistic and illustrate the critical paths,
contributions from research projects, interdependence of research activities,
and research objectives consistent with the Center’s vision.
• The extent to which there is a reasonable plan to develop specific, measurable,
and attainable metrics for milestones associated with critical path activities; and
• The quality and completeness of the Data Management Plan.
The evaluation of the Qualifications, Capabilities, and Expertise of Personnel includes:
• The extent to which the PI demonstrated qualifications to lead a major research
center and the PM qualifications to manage one;
• The extent to which the proposed team has the broad, deep, and diverse
expertise needed to advance the Center’s vision and research objectives; and
• The extent to which the levels of effort ascribed to the PI, PM, and Co-Is are
realistic and reasonable for the scope of the proposed program.

B.22-17
The evaluation of facilities, instruments, equipment and other resources or support
systems includes:
• The extent to which the proposal demonstrates access to, or plans for, adequate
facilities, computational resources (including cloud-based resources), and data to
conduct the proposed research; and
• The extent to which there is evidence of the institutional commitment of the lead
and partner organizations to the goals of the proposed Center.
Since relevance to the NASA strategic plans is already described in this funding
opportunity, it is not necessary for proposals to show relevance to NASA’s broader
goals and objectives but only to demonstrate relevance to the SWxC program. The
assessment of relevance will include whether the proposed research topics are aligned
with 2013 NAS Decadal Survey goals, as well as the degree to which they address
needs identified by the Gap Analysis or national space weather priorities as outlined in
the NSWSAP and PROSWIFT. The assessment of relevance also takes into account
the potential for proposed research products to be transitioned to an operational
partner. Proposals are not required to identify a specific transition partner, but the
proposal should clearly demonstrate relevance to the needs of one or more operational
agencies (see Section 3.6).
7. Proposal Review Information
7.1 Review Process
Step-1 proposals will be checked for compliance. Those that are non-compliant may be
returned without review. The PIs of Step-1 proposals will be encouraged to, or
discouraged from, submitting Step-2 proposals based on internal review. NASA will
notify the proposers of the results after the Step-1 evaluation process is completed.
Step-2 proposals will be evaluated by a review panel with input where appropriate from
external reviewers based on the review criteria specified in Section 6.2. These
reviewers will be asked to specifically address the innovative and frontier aspects of the
science proposed as well as the Center-appropriate nature of the project. Panelists and
external reviewers will be scientific experts across the range of disciplines covered by
the Step-2 proposals.
7.2 Opportunity to Respond to Draft Panel Findings
Proposers should be aware that, during the Step-2 proposal evaluation, NASA may
request clarification of specific points in a proposal; if so, such a request from NASA
and the proposer’s response must be in writing. Before finalizing the evaluation, NASA
may request clarification on specific, potential major weaknesses that have been
identified in the proposal. NASA will not enter into discussions with proposers. If NASA
requests clarification, it will do so in a uniform manner from all proposers. The ability of
proposers to provide clarification to NASA will be limited to a few types of responses:
1. Identification of the locations in the proposal (page[s], section[s], line[s]) where
the potential major weakness is addressed;
2. Stating that the potential major weakness is invalidated by information that is
common knowledge and is therefore not included in the proposal;

B.22-18
 3. Stating that the analysis leading to the potential major weakness is incorrect and
identifying a place in the proposal where data supporting a correct analysis may
be found;
4. Stating that a typographical error appears in the proposal and that the correct
data is available elsewhere inside or outside of the proposal; or
5. Noting that the potential major weakness is not addressed in the proposal.
The PI will be given up to two working days to respond to the request for clarification,
and proposers will be given at least two weeks advance notice of the date on which the
request for clarification will be provided. Any portion of a response that goes beyond
clarification disqualifies the entire response to that potential major weakness; in this
situation, a "No Response" will be reported the evaluation panel. Reviewers will be
provided with responses and may make adjustments to their findings as a result.
8. Award Information and Post-Award Requirements
8.1 Award Type and NASA Contribution
It is expected that all SWxC awards will be made as Cooperative Agreements rather
than grants, consistent with the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Manual. Any
funds to Co-Is at government labs will be sent directly to those organizations.
In addition to financial support (subject to availability of appropriated funds), oversight,
and monitoring, NASA shall provide a TTR advisor for each Center as discussed in
Section 3.6.
8.2 Award Reporting Requirements
SWxC awards will require the standard annual and final technical reports, financial
reports, and final patent/new technology reports. The following additional requirements
will be incorporated into SWxC awards:
8.3 Strategic Plan and Program Evaluation Plan
8.3.1 Strategic Planning Activities
A major activity of the first year of a Center is the development of a strategic plan. This
plan covers all aspects of a Center including research, team communication, Center
operations, data and code management, student and postdoc mentoring, and inclusion-
supporting activities. The complete strategic plan will be submitted to NASA as part of
the first annual report. Developing a strong strategic plan may include consultation with
strategic planning experts at the discretion of the PI. Proposals will discuss their
approach and timeline for strategic planning in their management plan section.
8.3.2 Program Evaluation Plan
NASA will provide instructions to PIs regarding how to develop a Program Evaluation
Plan for the Center, to be included as part of the first annual report, that will mutually
benefit the Agency and program participants. As part of developing this plan, Centers
should design metrics best suited to demonstrate progress in achieving broadly defined
science goals and specific objectives. Metrics for Center success would provide
evidence of scientific impact and improvement of space weather capabilities. In addition
to scientific publications and communications, other appropriate types of metrics,

B.22-19
include: providing high-value community resources, including models or model
frameworks, model outputs, and value-added datasets; support of innovation, patents,
and inventions; evidence of team formation and integration; and community impacts
may represent appropriate types of metrics. Evaluation throughout the Center lifetime
by an external advisory group could be built into the process to provide quality,
objective perspectives.
8.4 Kick-Off Meeting
The PI is required to organize a kick-off meeting to bring together the members of the
Center after funding is awarded. The kick-off is meant to set the course and tone for the
rest of the project. It is an opportunity to communicate the vision for the Center;
establish common goals and purpose throughout the team; to introduce the team
members to each other; to provide information on each member’s expertise, roles, and
responsibilities; and to create an understanding of the project background along with
what success looks like and what needs to be accomplished. It is also an opportunity to
review, and possibly refine, the timeline and initial statement of work with the entire
team; create a Center-wide understanding of the flow of the project, the activities, and
their level of interconnectedness; define the outputs and deliverables that are
anticipated; and discuss potential risks and mitigation strategies. Lastly, this is the
opportunity to introduce NASA representatives to the team and initiate a dialogue with
them about, for example, the agencies’ expectations, the scope of the project, reporting
requirements, and any other issues the team would like to address.
8.5 Web Presence
The Center is expected to establish and maintain a web presence to communicate
technical and programmatic results down to the project level, new discoveries and
opportunities to the research community, and new discoveries to the public.
8.6 Data Accessibility and Public Disclosure of Results
Consistent with the SMD Science Information Policy, Section 1.6 of B.1 Heliophysics
Division Overview, Section II(c) of the ROSES SoS as-accepted manuscript versions of
publications and data must be publicly archived. Code is to be made publicly available
when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when there is scientific utility in doing so.
9. Summary of Key Information
Expected total program budget for first $4.0M
year of new awards
Number of new awards ~2
Maximum duration of awards 5 years
Due date for Step-1 proposal See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Start date for new Awards ~6 months after Step-2 proposal due
date
Page length for the central
Science/Technical/Management section of 6 pages, see Section 5
Step-1 proposals

B.22-20
Page length for the central
Science/Technical/Management section of
Step-2 proposals
Relevance
General information and overview of this
solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the submission of
proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal via
NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal via
Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package from
Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this program
B.22-21
25 pages, see Table B.22-2 in Section
5.2
This program is relevant to the
Heliophysics questions and goals in the
NASA Science Plan. Proposals that are
relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
See Table 1 and Section IV of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
and Section 3 of the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help Sections
3.22-4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers and Section IV(b) of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is
required; no hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-SWxC
Jesse Woodroffe
Heliophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0574
Email: jesse.r.woodroffe@nasa.gov
APPENDIX C. PLANETARY SCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM
C.1 PLANETARY SCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Changes from Recent Years 3
1.2 Program Elements Covered by this Overview 3
2. Proposal Submission Processes 4
2.1 NOI submission process 4
2.2 Two-step submission process 4
2.3 Direct submission process 5
2.4 No Due Date programs 5
3. Requirements for Full Proposals 6
3.1 Full proposal content and formatting 6
3.2 Restrictions on Duplicate Proposals and Resubmissions 7
3.3 Restriction on Funding for Mission-Related Activities 8
3.4 Award Durations and Types 8
3.5 Use of Mission Data and Astromaterials 8
3.6 Discussion of Relevance 9
3.7 Data Management Plans and Archiving 9
3.7.1 How to prepare a DMP 9
3.7.2 Scope of a DMP 10
3.7.3 Schedule of a DMP 10
3.7.4 Contents of a DMP 11
3.7.5 Archiving of samples 11
3.7.6 Software 11
3.7.7 Acceptable data repositories 12
3.8 Table of Personnel and Work Effort 13
3.9 Publication of Geologic Maps 14
3.9.1 Program Elements Supporting Geologic Mapping 14
3.9.2 Maps Published by the U.S. Geological Survey 14
3.10 Access to the Antarctic 15
3.11 Funding for the Purchase, Construction, or Upgrade of Instrumentation 15
3.11.1 Funding for non-facility instrument requests 16
3.11.2 Allowable non-facility instrument requests and the definition of “substantial” instrumentation
16
3.11.3 Requirements for new proposals including substantial instrumentation requests 17
3.11.4 Evaluation of a proposal with a substantial instrumentation request 17
3.12 Planetary Science Division Early Career Fellowship Program 17
3.13 Topical Workshops 18

C.1-1
 3.14 Dual-Anonymous Peer Review 18
3.15 Fieldwork 18
4. Resources Available to Proposers 18
4.1 Data and Information Resources 18
4.1.1 The Planetary Data System 18
4.1.2 The National Space Science Data Center 19
4.1.3 The Lunar and Planetary Institute 19
4.1.4 Planetary Cartography Program 19
4.2 Astromaterials 20
4.3 Research Facilities 20
4.3.1 NASA-provided High-End Computational (HEC) Facilities 20
4.3.2 Planetary Aeolian Facility (PAL) 20
4.3.3 Reflectance Experiment Laboratory (RELAB) 20
4.3.4 NASA Ames Vertical Gun Range (AVGR) 21
4.3.5 NASA Venus In-situ Chamber Investigations (VICI) 21
4.3.6 NASA Glenn Extreme Environment Rig (GEER) 21
4.3.7 USGS Astrogeology Science Center (ASC) Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) 22

C.1-2
1. Introduction
The Planetary Science Research Program supports investigations to help ascertain the
content, origin, and evolution of the Solar System and the potential for life elsewhere,
consistent with the strategy for Planetary Science Exploration embodied in the Latest
Science Plan. The Planetary Science Research portfolio contains specific program
elements aimed at addressing these strategic objectives.
Note that the order of precedence guidelines, described in Section I(g) of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation, NASA Guidebook for Proposers, and ROSES instructions, may
be superseded or modified by this document (program element C.1) for all covered
program elements, and that each individual program element may have its own rules
that supersede all of the above.
1.1 Changes from Recent Years
This Planetary Science Research Overview has been substantially revised in recent
years. Proposers who have not submitted recently are encouraged to read C.1 in its
entirety. Several recent changes to program element C.1 are:
● Section 3.2 regarding the prohibition of duplicate proposals was substantially
revised in ROSES-2021 and updated in ROSES-2022.
● Requirements for Data Management Plans (DMPs) have been updated.
● The C.4 program element will not be soliciting proposals for the development or
validation of software tools.
● Starting in ROSES 2022, C.3 Solar System Workings (SSW) excludes
investigations involving archival data from Earth-based observations, as these
investigations are now covered by Appendix C.6, Solar System Observations
(SSO).
● Information pertaining to Planetary Major Equipment and Facilities (PMEF) has
been changed, with the replacement of PMEF by Planetary Science Enabling
Facilities (PSEF C.17) and changes to section 3.11 below.
● The Planetary Science Division (PSD) may solicit the following programs as part
of ROSES-22: C.20 Interdisciplinary Consortia for Astrobiology Research (ICAR),
C.22 Concepts for Ocean Worlds Life Detection Technology: Autonomy,
Communications, and Radiation-Hard Devices (COLDTech), C.24 Martian
Moons eXploration (MMX) mission Participating Scientists, C.25 Artemis Geology
Team (AGT), C.26 Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA), and C.27
Prepatory Science Investigations for Europa (PSIE). The final text and due dates
will be released in NSPIRES as Amendments to ROSES no fewer than 90 days
prior to the full proposal due date.
● Early Career Awards (C.18), and Topical Workshops, Symposia, and
Conferences (F.2) has been added in Sections 3.12 and 3.13.
1.2 Program Elements Covered by this Overview
This document pertains to all of the program elements in Appendix C of ROSES,
including the cross-divisional research program element F.4, Habitable Worlds, but not
F.3, Exoplanet Research Program.

C.1-3
2. Proposal Submission Processes
Program elements covered by C.1, Planetary Overview, use a variety of submission
methods: sometimes nothing is requested or required in advance of the full proposal
submission, sometimes a notice of intent (NOI) is requested, sometimes a mandatory
NOI or a Step-1 proposal is required for subsequent proposal submission. See below
and sections IV(b)vi-viii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation for more information.
The submission method being used will be stated in the text of each program element,
but it is also indicated in Tables 2 and 3 (the tables of due dates).
2.1 NOI submission process
An NOI is a brief plain-text summary of what the proposer intends to submit, and may
be submitted without endorsement from, or action by, the Authorized Organizational
Representative (AOR). For more information see Section IV(b)vi of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and the "Create and Submit NOI" tutorial on the NSPIRES web
page. As noted above, sometimes the submission of an NOI is mandatory. Note that
NOIs cannot be submitted via Grants.gov, even if the proposal will ultimately be
submitted via that system.
2.2 Two-step submission process
To facilitate the early recruitment of a conflict-free review panel and ensure that
proposals are submitted to the appropriate program, many program elements covered
by program element C.1 will use a two-step proposal submission process (see Section
IV(b)vii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation). For program elements using the two-
step process, a Step-1 proposal is required and must be submitted electronically by an
AOR prior to the separate Step-1 deadline. No budget is required. Only proposers who
submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a full, Step-2 proposal. Such Step-2
proposals must address the same broad scientific goals proposed in the Step-1
proposal. The PI cannot be changed and proposers who want to add funded
investigators between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals must inform the point(s) of
contact identified in the summary table of key information and cc sara@nasa.gov at
least two weeks in advance of the Step-2 due date. Additions of funded investigators
within two weeks of the Step-2 deadline require permission from the NASA point of
contact. Submission of a Step-1 proposal does not obligate the proposer to submit a
Step-2 (full) proposal later.
The Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section of a Step-1 proposal is restricted
to the 4000-character text box on the NSPIRES web interface cover pages. Unless
otherwise stated, PDF attachments will not be accepted through NSPIRES for Step-1
proposals submitted to most program elements covered by program element C.1.
A Step-1 proposal must cover the following topics:
● The goals and objectives of the proposed work;
● The approach and methodology to be used to address the goals and/or
objectives; and
● The reasons why the work proposed is within the scope of the program element,
and why this program element is the most appropriate for the work proposed.

C.1-4
Following the submission of a Step-1 proposal, most proposers will be notified through
NSPIRES that the Step-1 proposal has been designated as "encouraged" or
"discouraged," at which point the proposer will be able to create a Step-2 proposal. No
evaluation of intrinsic merit will be performed on Step-1 proposals. The perceived
relevance of the proposed work to the particular program element will be the main factor
in deciding whether submission of a Step-2 proposal will be encouraged. Please note
that the Step-2 proposal evaluation is independent of the Step-1 designation; i.e.,
reviewers of a Step-2 proposal do not know whether a proposal was discouraged at
Step-1.
In rare cases, for example, when the Step-1 proposal is not compliant with the
requirements outlined above, or the proposed work cannot be funded because of
NASA, SMD, or Planetary Science Division (PSD) policy, a Step-1 proposal may be
declined by the Selection Official. In such a case, a Step-2 proposal cannot be
submitted.
2.3 Direct submission process
As mentioned above, some program elements do not request or accept NOIs or Step-1
proposals. In these cases, AORs simply submit the (full) proposal by the published
deadline. See Section 3 for additional requirements for a full proposal.

2.4 No Due Date programs

Several programs within PSD now accept submissions on a rolling basis. No Due Date
(NoDD) programs require neither a NOI nor a Step-1 proposal; the full proposals may
be submitted at any time during the year. Though the NSPIRES page for those
programs display a "Proposals Due" date, that is simply the end date for the current
ROSES, immediately after which proposals may be submitted to the program element
with the same name in the next ROSES.
Review of proposals will also be spread throughout the year and will reflect the rate at
which new proposals are submitted. Reviews will be carried out using similar
methodologies to non-NoDD programs.
This year the NoDD program element are:
C.2 Emerging Worlds (EW),
C.3 Solar System Workings (SSW),
C.4 Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration (PDAR),
C.5 Exobiology (ExoBio),
C.6 Solar System Observations (SSO),
C.12 Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar System
Observations (PICASSO) and
C.16 Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples (LARS)
See https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD to download the NoDD FAQ and NoDD
explanatory document, both of which will also be posted on the NSPIRES page of any
NoDD program.
When a proposal is submitted to a NoDD program, the ban on duplicate proposals (see
Section 3.2) applies for a period of one year from the time the proposal was submitted

C.1-5
and, likewise, a proposal submitted to a non-NoDD program may not be submitted to a
NoDD program for one year. This is described in further detail in Section 3.2. Proposals
which are submitted prior to the passage of a full year may be returned without review
or held for review at a future time after that year has passed.
Selections from NoDD programs are anticipated to occur on timescales comparable to
their non-NoDD counterparts; the budget for individual programs will be allocated
throughout the year so as to not provide any advantage to proposals submitted at any
particular time through the year. It is possible that programs will make additional use of
the "Selectable" category for proposals, to account for uneven distribution of proposal
submission over time.
Abstracts for selected proposals and program statistics will continue to be posted on
NSPIRES, but program statistics will be modified to reflect proposals submitted/selected
over the course of the previous 12 months.
Any new information on NoDD programs will be posted on the NoDD website at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD and its FAQ.
3. Requirements for Full Proposals
"Full" and "Step-2" proposals are synonymous, meaning the proposal that is peer
reviewed, with the term "Step-2" used in program elements that use the two-step
submission process.
3.1 Full proposal content and formatting
Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation provides a checklist of required
information to be included in full proposals. For program elements using the two-step
submission process, proposers may also refer to the PDF entitled "How to Create a
Step-2 Proposal" that appears under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for the
program of interest.
All proposals submitted to ROSES must strictly conform to the instructions regarding
proposal format and content. This includes all formatting rules outlined in Section IV(b)ii
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, unless specifically contradicted within a
program Appendix. Any detected violation of these rules is grounds for the proposal to
be rejected without review or declined following review, with the concurrence of the
Selecting Official.
In previous years, problems with the following aspects of proposal formatting have been
noted:
● Length of the Scientific/Technical/Management section: 15 pages, unless
otherwise specified in the program element.
● Margins: 1 inch on all sides, with a page size of 8.5 × 11 inches.
● Font: 12-point or larger. The selected font must meet the requirement of having,
on average, no more than 15 characters per inch (e.g., Times New Roman and
Arial). Proposers may not adjust the character spacing or otherwise condense a
font from its default appearance.

C.1-6
 ● Line spacing: Font and line spacing settings must produce text that contains no
more than 5.5 lines per inch. Proposers may not adjust line spacing settings for a
selected font below single spaced.
● Figure captions: Captions must follow the same font and spacing rules as the
main text.
● Figures and tables: For text within figures and tables, font and spacing rules
listed above do not apply, but all text must be judged to be legible to reviewers
without magnification above 100%. Expository text necessary for the proposal
may not be located solely in figures or tables.
3.2 Restrictions on Duplicate Proposals and Resubmissions
Submission of duplicate proposals and resubmission of revised proposals are restricted
in the ways described below. Proposals that violate these restrictions may be returned
without review, or may be declined following review, regardless of merit.
If it is unclear if a proposal should be considered a duplicate or resubmitted proposal,
proposers should ask the point of contact for the program element to which the
proposer plans to submit.
A proposal is considered "duplicate" if it consists of the same, or essentially the same,
work as another proposal. Duplicate proposals have shared objectives, methodology,
and key team members (regardless of who is PI). Proposals that share these properties
are duplicates, even if they differ in their relevance statements or any materials outside
the S/T/M section such as budget, DMP, biographical sketches, current and pending
support, etc.
New for ROSES 2022: certain tasks in proposals are also subject to these duplicate
proposal restrictions. Two proposals are considered duplicates if both contain the same
independent task, even if part of a broader workplan in one or both proposals. An
independent task is one that, in and of itself, constitutes a science project that could
reasonably be submitted on its own for peer review.
Restriction: A duplicate proposal may not be submitted to the same or another program
covered by C.1 in a single ROSES year, nor may it be submitted if the decision to select
or decline the original proposal is still pending, regardless of ROSES year.
A "resubmitted" proposal is one that was declined for funding for any reason (with
exceptions noted below) by any program covered by C.1 and then submitted again to
any program covered by C.1. Revisions may be significant, including methodology,
team members, resources to be used, and workplan. However, the goals and objectives
are largely the same as in the previous declined proposal.
New for ROSES 2022: if an independent task from a proposal that was declined for
funding is incorporated into a later proposal, the entire second proposal is considered to
be "resubmitted".
Restriction: A proposal may not be resubmitted to the same or another program in the
same ROSES year or to any NoDD program (see Section 2.4) within one year of the
most recent submission.

C.1-7
 3.2.1 Exceptions
Proposals declined without review are not considered to be previously submitted. There
are no restrictions on resubmitting such proposals.
Proposals that were declined because they were found not to be relevant to the
program to which they were submitted may also be resubmitted without restriction.
However, such a proposal should not be resubmitted to the same program without
revision to address the relevance weaknesses; failure to do so may result in a second
rejection without review.
3.3 Restriction on Funding for Mission-Related Activities
The Planetary Science R&A programs are not intended to provide additional support for
mission scientists to carry out activities within the scope of a mission. They are also not
intended to augment mission project budgets with the exception of participating
scientist/guest investigator programs. If the proposal team contains individuals
associated with a mission team (regardless of their role[s] on the proposal or on the
mission), and the proposal contains content that might be construed as mission-related,
then it must demonstrate that the proposed work is not being used for the above
purposes. This applies during all phases of the mission (A through F), unless otherwise
specified in the program element. This demonstration should be included in the S/T/M
section of the proposal.
Regardless of whether any members of the proposal team are affiliated with a relevant
mission, proposals may be evaluated for the degree of overlap with mission activities.
Proposals for work close in scope to a mission’s activities may be declined for
programmatic reasons.
3.4 Award Durations and Types
The typical award duration is three years. Proposals for less than three years are
encouraged for projects that can be completed on shorter timescales. For those
program elements that permit longer awards, funding for more than three years must be
explicitly justified in the proposal, i.e., to allow the completion of individual tasks that
require more than three years. In these cases, the proposal must contain a discussion
of why it is impractical or impossible to complete such tasks within three years.
Note that no contracts will be issued for awards made under the program elements
covered by program element C.1 unless otherwise noted in the individual program
element.
3.5 Use of Mission Data and Astromaterials
Spacecraft mission data to be used in proposed work must be available in the Planetary
Data System (PDS), or an equivalent, publicly accessible, archive, at least 30 days prior
to the full proposal due date or proposal submission date for proposals submitted to
NoDD programs, unless otherwise specified in the program call. Likewise, high-order
data products to be used in the proposed work must be in the PDS, equivalent archive,
or otherwise in the public domain for 30 days prior to the proposal due date. The
calendar of record for data released in the PDS can be found on the PDS Data Release
Calendar website.

C.1-8
Astromaterials to be used in proposed work, including all mission-returned samples,
meteorites, and cosmic dust, must be publicly accessible. Their availability (or imminent
availability) for allocation must have been announced in public catalogs at least 30 days
prior to the full proposal due date or proposal submission date for proposals submitted
to NoDD programs, unless otherwise specified in the program call. The accessibility
requirement is satisfied if either the material to be used itself, or in the case of
meteorites, a type specimen, has been deposited in a repository that makes the
samples available to qualified researchers at US institutions. A sample that meets these
requirements would still be considered as accessible, even if allocation of that sample is
done by a competitive or peer-reviewed process. Note that meteorites and other
astromaterials collected by the proposal team as part of their proposed work are exempt
from the requirements of this section, but the proposal must cover sample archiving in
its Data Management Plan.
3.6 Discussion of Relevance
All proposals will be evaluated for relevance to the individual program element to which
the proposal has been submitted (see Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation).
Some program elements covered by this overview require that an explicit relevance
statement be placed into a mandatory (4000-character) text box on the cover pages via
the NSPIRES web interface. For program elements that require the text box, this
required relevance statement is outside of the 15-page S/T/M Section and does not
need to be repeated in that section. This requirement supersedes the default in the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. For these
calls, the omission of a relevance statement on the cover pages is sufficient reason for
a proposal to be returned without review.
3.7 Data Management Plans
To broaden access to the results of NASA-funded research, proposals submitted to
ROSES must include a Data Management Plan (DMP) as summarized in this section.
The quality of the DMP is assessed as part of the evaluation of intrinsic merit. The
guiding philosophy behind this requirement and approach is that all scientific information
produced from SMD-funded scientific research activities should be made publicly
available and preserved, without fee or restriction of use, in machine-readable formats,
with robust and standards-compliant metadata, to ensure their long-term accessibility
and reusability, while enabling reproducibility of the research. For more details and
definitions about what scientific information should be shared, see Section II.c of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation, SPD-41: Scientific Information Policy at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/science-data/science-information-policy and any
specific guidance in the program element for sharing scientific information.
3.7.1 How to prepare a DMP
Unless otherwise stated by the program element, DMPs must be placed in a special
section of the proposal entitled "Data Management Plan." The DMP may not exceed
two pages in length and must immediately follow the references and citations for the
S/T/M portion of the proposal. The two-page DMP section does not count against the

C.1-9
page-limited S/T/M section. Formatting requirements for DMPs are the same as for the
S/T/M section. When appropriate or required, letters of support from data archives (e.g.,
Section 3.7.7 of this document) must be included in a Statements of Commitment and
Letters of Support, Feasibility and Endorsement section of the proposal (see ROSES
Summary of Solicitation, Table 1).
Individual program elements may provide instructions that supersede or amplify the
DMP requirements described in this section. For example, the C.4 PDAR program
element includes the data management discussion within the page-limited S/T/M
section of the proposal. While the instrument development and equipment calls (e.g.,
program elements C.12 PICASSO and C.13 MatISSE) do not require DMPs, any
resulting scientific information from awarded projects must still comply with
requirements in the grant terms and conditions to, e.g., archive as accepted manuscript
versions of publications as well as data and code, as applicable, see below.
3.7.2 Scope of a DMP
The DMP must cover three things: publications, data, and software to be produced
during the SMD-funded project.
Starting in ROSES 2022, the DMP should cover plans for making peer-reviewed
publications openly available. Manuscript versions of peer-reviewed publications
(hereinafter "manuscripts") that result must be uploaded via NASA PubSpace within one
year of publication. NASA encourages manuscripts to be posted on community
appropriate preprint servers, and publications to be full Open Access, and any cost to
do so should be included in the budget.
"Data" includes, at a minimum, that needed to validate the scientific conclusions of
peer-reviewed publications, data underlying figures, maps, and tables. Data does not
include preliminary and other unpublished data, data in pre-publication documents,
private communications, or certain other types of information that have been specifically
exempted from the DMP requirement. In the case of a project that would produce no
data, as defined above, or only data specifically exempted, the DMP must not only state
that no data preservation or data sharing is needed, but also explain why.
The DMP must also cover the management and development of software necessary to
complete the scientific research. The DMP must include what software development is
needed, how the software will be managed, and, if applicable, where the software will
be shared. See Section 3.7.6, below.
3.7.3 Schedule of a DMP
The full text of all peer-reviewed publications resulting from SMD-funded projects must
be made publicly available and deposited in NASA PubSpace repository within 12
months of publication.
Data underlying published figures, maps, and tables, etc. produced by an SMD-funded
project must be made publicly available, without fee or restriction of use, in a repository
that has stable and long-term support, at or before the time of its associated publication.
Other scientifically useful data produced by an SMD-funded project, regardless of its
use in a publication, by the end of the performance period of the award when it is
practical and feasible to do so and when there is scientific utility in doing so (e.g., to

C.1-10
ensure reproducibility of published results or enable future research). SMD-funded data
made publicly available must be released under an open and accessible data license.
When software is made publicly available (see below), it should be released as open-
source software no later than the publication and under a permissive license that has
broad acceptance in the community.
3.7.4 Contents of a DMP
The DMP must contain the following elements, as appropriate to the project, in
adequate detail for review:
● Descriptions of the machine-readable data types, volumes, formats, licenses,
and (where relevant) metadata standards;
● Descriptions of the intended data repositories, including mechanisms for long-
term public access and schedules for distribution;
● Descriptions of any anticipated scientifically useful software, including the
intended repositories, licenses, and schedules for distribution;
● Discussion of roles and responsibilities of team members in accomplishing the
DMP (if funds are required for data management activities, these should be
covered in the normal budget and budget justification sections of the proposal).
Funded researchers, research institutions, and NASA centers are responsible for
ensuring and demonstrating compliance with the DMPs approved as part of their
awards. Awardees who do not fulfill the intent of their DMPs may have continuing funds
withheld and this may be considered in the evaluation of future proposals. For further
details about DMPs, please look at the ROSES DMP FAQ page.
3.7.5 Archiving of samples
PSD requires the DMP to also cover any physical materials that are planned to be
collected, purchased, or produced during the course of the research. These include
astromaterials such as meteorites, micrometeorites, and cosmic dust; for astrobiology
research, this would include biomaterials produced, analog materials collected or
synthesized, or analytical standards developed. The DMP should demonstrate that any
such materials with scientific value that are not consumed during the proposed research
will be made publicly available prior to the end of the performance period. Proposers are
also encouraged, but not required, to discuss how other physical materials collected,
purchased, or synthesized during the planned research would be made publicly
available when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when there is scientific utility in
doing so.
3.7.6 Software
Software, whether a stand-alone program, an enhancement to existing code, or a
module that interfaces with existing codes, created as part of a ROSES award should
be made publicly available (as open-source software) when it is practical and feasible to
do so, and when there is scientific utility in doing so. Stand-alone code that is not
straightforward to implement, or whose utility is significantly outweighed by the costs to
share it, is not expected to be made available. In order to achieve reproducibility,
research software developed using SMD funding and used in support of a scientific,
peer-reviewed publication should be released as open-source software no later than the

C.1-11
publication date. This does not include commercial software or restricted software due
to ITAR, export control, Controlled Unclassified Information, or intellectual property.
SMD expects that the source code, with associated documentation sufficient to enable
use of the code, will be made publicly available via the planetary science section of
GitHub, (contact sarah.noble-1@nasa.gov for access) or an appropriate community-
recognized depository. Archiving software in a public repository does not require the
proposer to maintain the code. SMD-funded software should be released under a
permissive license that has broad acceptance in the community. Awards that derive
from proposals that include plans to post code in GitHub will contain a permissive open-
source license reflecting this expectation. For more details, please follow the Scientific
Information policy, SMD Policy Document SPD-41.
This expectation extends to three types of software, defined as follows:

Short Name Description Examples

Name

Libraries Libraries and Generic tools implementing Numerical Recipes,

toolkits well-known algorithms, NumPy, general FFTs,
providing statistical LAPACK, scikit-learn,
analysis or visualization, AstroPy, GDAL
and so on, that are
incorporated in other
software categories.

Analysis Analysis, Generalized software (not Stand-alone image

software post- low-level libraries) used to processing, topology
processing, or manipulate measurements analysis, vector-field
visualization or model results to analysis, satellite analysis
software visualize or gain tools, and so on
understanding.

Frameworks Modeling Multicomponent software Community Earth System

frameworks systems that incorporate a
variety of models and
couple them together in a
complex way.
Model (CESM) is a
collection of coupled
models including
atmospheric,
oceanographic, sea ice,
land surface, and other
models

3.7.7 Acceptable data repositories

SMD policy currently requires that repositories used for SMD information have the
following properties:
• Make information findable and accessible to the public without fee or restriction
of use;

C.1-12
 • Compliant with standards for accessibility for all electronic and information
technology to people with disabilities;
• Compliant with a principle of non-discriminatory data access so that all users will
be treated equally (any variation in accessibility will result solely from the
capability, equipment, and connectivity of the user);
Additionally, repositories should be capable of maintaining the information for an
extended period (e.g., the draft SPD-41a suggests 25 years) and follow FAIR Guiding
Principles.
In a case where no appropriate archive exists for a particular data set, the DMP should
discuss alternative methods for making the data publicly available.
Proposers considering archiving their data in the Planetary Data System (PDS) should
keep in mind that data archived in the PDS are intended for long-term preservation and
must be in PDS4 formats as well as undergo a separate peer review process.
Proposers intending to archive data in the PDS must obtain a letter of support from the
appropriate PDS Discipline Node confirming that the PDS is willing to accept their
submission. This letter must be included in the proposal package and placed in a
section for Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support, Feasibility, and
Endorsement (see ROSES Summary of Solicitation, Table 1). Letters must be
requested at least one week prior to the program element due date and proposers are
strongly encouraged to initiate conversations with the relevant PDS Discipline Node
several weeks ahead. See the Information for Data Proposers and Guidelines for
Archiving sections of the PDS website for more information.
3.8 Table of Personnel and Work Effort
All proposals must include a Table of Personnel and Work Effort. If the program element
allows contracts, and it is anticipated by the proposer that the proposal will result in a
contract, this table must be within the budget narrative section. All other proposals
should include this table as a separate section before the Budget Justification section,
and follow the instructions presented here.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to use the PSD Table of Personnel and Work Effort
template, which may be downloaded as a Word document, a LaTeX template, or a pdf
from the SARA webpage.
The Table of Personnel and Work Effort must list the names (if known) and titles of
every person who will do work on the proposal, regardless of whether that person would
receive money, and regardless of their role on the project. It must cover all personnel,
including those covered by any sub-awards, sub-contracts, or who work at any NASA
center or federal agency that may receive money separately from the main award. The
table must have entries covering each proposed award year (do not provide a separate
table divided by federal fiscal years) and must distinguish between the effort to be
funded by the submitted proposal and non-funded efforts plus those funded separately.
All work efforts listed in the table should be made in fractions of a work-year.
Note that this section may not contain any narrative description of tasks to be performed
by proposal personnel; such information should be placed in the page-limited
Scientific/Technical/ Management section of the proposal.

C.1-13
3.9 Publication of Geologic Maps
Geologic mapping is an investigative process designed to go beyond standard image
analyses to determine the geologic history of a region of interest, whether it is local,
regional, or global. Thus, geologic maps are key tools to aid in identification of this
geologic history. Below are some guidelines about where to propose geologic mapping
investigations.
3.9.1 Program Elements Supporting Geologic Mapping
If a geologic map would be created as part of a hypothesis-driven science investigation
(i.e., to address specific scientific objectives or questions about a region of interest, as
opposed to PDAR, see below), and uses data from planetary missions identified in a
Data Analysis Program (DAP), then the proposal should be submitted to the appropriate
DAP. For example:
● Pluto and Charon maps: New Frontiers DAP (C.7 NFDAP)
● Lunar maps: Lunar DAP (C.8 LDAP)
● Mars maps: Mars DAP (C.9 MDAP)
● Cassini-based Saturnian satellite maps: Cassini DAP (C.10 CDAP), and
● Dawn-based Vesta or Ceres maps and MESSENGER-based Mercury maps:
Discovery DAP (C.11 DDAP).
If a geologic map would be created as part of a hypothesis-driven science investigation
using data from missions not covered by a current DAP (e.g., Venus missions), or as
part of a comparative planetology science investigation not responsive to a single DAP,
then the proposal should be submitted to whichever of the non-DAP research program
elements the proposal is most relevant (e.g., Solar System Workings, Emerging Worlds,
Habitable Worlds).
If a geologic map would be created without an accompanying hypothesis-driven science
investigation, then the mapping proposal should be submitted to PDAR (program
element C.4).
3.9.2 Maps Published by the U.S. Geological Survey
Proposals that include the publication of a Scientific Investigations Map (SIM) by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) should check the relevant box on the proposal cover
page and clearly indicate this intention in the Proposal Summary, as well as in the text
of the proposal. Investigators who choose to produce a geologic map as a USGS
product will be required to follow current guidelines for the production and submission of
digital products, including the generation of maps that are compatible with Geographic
Information System (GIS) software packages for review, edit, and publication. To
support this requirement, the USGS will provide a GIS project that contains the
projected, geographically rectified, and scaled mapping base or mosaic, as well as other
relevant global- or regional-scale data sets (if available and needed). Investigators
selected to publish USGS geologic maps will be expected to (1) provide peer reviews
for two geologic maps generated by other planetary mappers during their grant period,
and (2) attend the annual Planetary Geologic Mappers Meeting to present their map
status to the mapping community and receive updates on current guidelines. Proposers
should include travel funding to attend the Planetary Geologic Mappers Meeting,

C.1-14
justifiable because of NASA requirements. Further information pertaining to the
production of USGS geologic maps (e.g., map bases, scales, extents, formats,
guidelines) is available on the Planetary Geologic Mapping Program website, or by
contacting Jim Skinner at the USGS (jskinner@usgs.gov).
Investigators who intend to produce a USGS geologic map are required to include a
Confirmation of Technical Specification document, obtained from the USGS Map
Coordinator, in their Step-2 (full) proposal. This document should identify the
(1) latitude/longitude boundaries of the map region, (2) scale of the proposed map,
(3) required base map, (4) projection of the base map, and (5) key supplemental data.
This document is only a confirmation and does not fulfill any requirement that the
mapping effort be described and justified within the 15-page S/T/M Section of the
proposal. Selection of a proposal for funding is contingent upon the inclusion of this
document. Investigators are encouraged to contact the USGS early in the proposal
preparation process.
3.10 Access to the Antarctic
Some program elements in Appendix C, such as C.3 SSW, allow proposals that would
require access to the Antarctic. However, unless otherwise stated, program elements in
Appendix C will not fund work in Antarctica.
Proposals to those elements that allow Antarctic fieldwork must include all costs
associated with this fieldwork in their proposal budgets. For Antarctic fieldwork
supported by the United States Antarctic Program (USAP), such costs include: physical
qualification exams; airfare, lodging, and per diem for travel to Christchurch, New
Zealand (departure point for Antarctica; seven days in Christchurch should be included
as margin for weather-related delays); any required cargo transportation (origin to Pt.
Hueneme, California, and return); and any specialty materials or large quantities of
stocked materials required in Antarctica. Proposers must also include costs associated
with logistics support provided by the USAP via the National Science Foundation (NSF).
To obtain these costs, proposers must complete an Antarctic Logistics Requirements
and Field Plan, and return it to Jessie Crain, Antarctic Research Support Manager
(jlcrain@nsf.gov). Requirements for this document, and other guidance for conducting
field work in the Antarctic, may be found on the Proposal Preparation Reference
Information website. Please allow one month for processing to receive the USAP cost
estimate.
3.11 Funding for the Purchase, Construction, or Upgrade of Instrumentation
The Planetary Major Equipment and Facilities solicitation is no longer solicited starting
in ROSES-2022. Program element C.17 has been changed from "Planetary Major
Equipment and Facilities" to the "Planetary Science Enabling Facilities (PSEF)
Program". The following changes are in effect for all PSD programs in Appendix C, plus
Exoplanets Research Program (F.3) and Habitable Worlds (F.4):
• Proposals to all programs may request equipment or instrumentation costing
over $50,000, using the instructions below.
• New instrumentation requests to supplement already funded investigations
(previously known as “Stand-alone investigator instruments") are no longer

C.1-15
 solicited. Investigators with active awards who need to replace, repair, or
upgrade existing instrumentation to complete their investigations should contact
their program officer (to determine whether funds are available for augmentation
of their existing award, and for instructions on how to make such requests).
• Requests for new facility instruments (where a significant fraction of time on the
instrument would be made available to other researchers), or to support the
operations of such facilities, may only be submitted to the Planetary Science
Enabling Facilities program element, C.17.
3.11.1 Funding for non-facility instrument requests
In certain program elements, listed below, supplemental funding may be available to
help support requests for instrumentation. For ROSES 2022, it is expected that up to
$2.5M will be available to fund such requests. In cases where supplemental funding is
not available, including all ineligible programs, an instrument request competes with
new research proposals for the funding listed in the specific ROSES appendix for that
program element.
The following program elements are eligible for supplemental instrument funding:
C.2 Emerging Worlds
C.3 Solar System Workings
C.4 Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration
C.5 Exobiology
C.6 Solar System Observations
C.14 Planetary Science and Technology through Analog Research
C.15 Planetary Protection Research
C.16 Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples (LARS)1
C.18 Planetary Science Early Career Award
C.20 Interdisciplinary Consortia for Astrobiology Research
F.3 Exoplanets Research Program (cross-divisional)2
F.4 Habitable Worlds (cross-divisional)2
1
See C.16 for LARS-specific information
2
Relevance to PSD will be an additional factor in the eligibility of instrument requests in these
programs for supplemental funding.
There is no cap on the cost of non-facility instruments that may be requested. However,
proposers should take into account the total program budget, as well as the availability
of supplemental funding, in developing instrument requests.
3.11.2 Allowable non-facility instrument requests and the definition of “substantial”
instrumentation
The are no restrictions on what kinds of instrumentation purchases or upgrades may be
requested through PSD R&A programs. In new proposals, only instrument requests of a
“substantial” nature, with hardware costs over $50,000, are eligible for supplemental
funding beyond the program budget. To be considered substantial, the instrument
request must be for purchase of a single instrument or system, or components of a
single instrument or system, costing $50,000 or more. If a PI wishes to purchase
multiple, unrelated equipment items each of which costs less than $50,000, these are
not considered to be substantial, even if the combined cost exceeds $50,000. Note that

C.1-16
proposals which seek to design, develop, test, or evaluate new instruments that are
intended for commercial sale will be declined.
3.11.3 Requirements for new proposals including substantial instrumentation
requests
All information about the research to be performed with the requested equipment,
including justification for the instrument and any descope plans, should be integrated
into the Scientific/Technical/Management section of the proposal. This includes
description of any instrument-development efforts associated with the purchase. In
constructing a proposal that contains a substantial instrument request, the PI should
consider whether and how the work could be executed if the instrument request were
not funded. The Scientific/Technical/ Management section of the main proposal should
contain a contingency plan in the event that the instrument request must be descoped
(not funded). This plan might discuss alternative methods of obtaining the required data,
the effect that the lack of the instrument would have on the proposed science goals, or
tasks that could be removed from the proposal if the instrument were not available. If
the contingency plan has budget implications (either positive or negative), the
proposal’s budget section should either clearly identify the contingent items or include a
clearly labeled alternate budget table that takes into account the case of the instrument
not being funded. If the proposal could not be executed without the instrument, this
should be explicitly stated. If no contingency plan is presented, the instrument request
will always be considered as an essential element of the proposal.
Proposals with a substantial instrument request must contain additional information
about the requested instrumentation (see 3.11.3, below). Such proposals must include:
• A scientific and technical justification for the new equipment or instrument
• A descope plan or a statement that the proposed instrument or equipment cannot
be descoped
• At least one quote for each proposed instrument, to be included in the budget
section
• One page of instrument specifications included immediately after the quote(s)
• Any cost-sharing plans to pay for the proposed instrument or equipment, to be
included in the budget section.
When filling out the NSPIRES cover page budget for a proposal with a substantial
instrument request, the cost of the equipment must be included as a single number per
year on configurable line 10 in Section F, Other Direct Costs and labeled as "Cost of
substantial instrumentation".
3.11.4 Evaluation of a proposal with a substantial instrumentation request
A proposal will always be evaluated under the assumption that the substantial
instrumentation will be funded. The proposal will also receive a separate score for
intrinsic merit if any contingency or descope plan were executed.
3.12 Planetary Science Division Early Career Fellowship Program
The Early Career Fellowship (ECF) Program is no longer solicited. Previously named
ECF Fellows should contact Melissa Morris (melissa.a.morris@nasa.gov) with any

C.1-17
questions concerning this program. The current Early Career Award (ECA) program is
solicited in C.18.
3.13 Topical Workshops
All proposals for topical conferences, workshops, or symposia related to the Planetary
Science Division Research and Analysis Program must be submitted in response to
program element F.2, Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences. Proposers to
F.2 must specifically identify the PSD research program element to which the event is
most closely related and refer to the goals and objectives of that program element in
demonstrating relevance.
3.14 Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
As described in Section V(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, dual-anonymous
peer review (DAPR) is a process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the
identity of the reviewers, but the reviewers are not given the identity of the proposers
until after the evaluation of the proposal. All PSD DAPs and the cross-divisional XRP
(F.3) shall be conducted under the dual-anonymous peer review process (DAPR)
piloted under ROSES-2020. This shall include Cassini DAP, Discovery DAP, Lunar
DAP, Mars DAP, and New Frontiers DAP. Under this process, not only are proposers
unaware of the identity of the reviewers, but the reviewers are not given the identity of
the proposers until after the evaluation of intrinsic merit. More information on DAPR can
be found at the SMD DAPR website. Specific instructions on how to anonymize
proposals will be in both the individual program elements as well as each program’s
individual NSPIRES page in a document entitled “Guidelines for Anonymized
Proposals.”
3.15 Fieldwork
Proposers conducting field research must include a description of their use of field
site(s) that demonstrates:
• Respect for the values of other users of the site by considering the impact that
their work will have on the environment (e.g., sensitive ecosystems or historic
properties of religious, cultural, or scientific significance).
• A research plan that reduces impact to the site (if any).
• The intention to obtain relevant permits and follow their guidelines.
Moreover, to help create an environment that is free of harassment and
discrimination, proposers must cite a specific policy, code of conduct, or ground rules
provided to participants in advance of the fieldwork. This information will be provided by
proposers in response to an NSPIRES cover page question.
4. Resources Available to Proposers
4.1 Data and Information Resources
4.1.1 The Planetary Data System
The Planetary Data System (PDS) archives and distributes scientific data from NASA
planetary missions, astronomical observations, and laboratory measurements. The
archives can be found through the PDS home page. PDS is supported by six science

C.1-18
discipline nodes (Atmospheres, Geosciences, Imaging, Planetary Plasma Interactions,
Rings, and Small Bodies) distributed around the U.S. Each node houses data from
NASA’s planetary missions, and documentation necessary to use those data. Data
searches and requests can be initiated from the PDS home page or at any of the
science discipline node pages accessible there. Guides and tools for using data,
preparing an archive, and archiving data can be found in the PDS Tools section.
Contact the PDS Operator (pds_operator@jpl.nasa.gov) or the appropriate node’s
point-of-contact for assistance.
4.1.2 The National Space Science Data Center
The National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) archives digital and other data from
historic and completed flight missions, and its archives are complementary to those of
the PDS. NSSDC data include lunar and planetary photographs, digital planetary
images, tabular and experiment data from numerous flight missions, and cartographic
products. Investigators are responsible for acquiring the data needed for their proposal.
Modest requests for data are free of charge, although charges will be incurred for large-
volume requests. Requests for data products and information may be made through the
Coordinated Request and User Support Office at the NSSDC (nssdc-
request@lists.nasa.gov). For more information, see the NSSDC website.
4.1.3 The Lunar and Planetary Institute
The Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI) provides one of the most concentrated and
easily accessible collections of data and other information in lunar and planetary
science, including extensive digital map and imagery collections, computational tools for
the lunar community, and a vast collection of educational products and resources.
These resources, along with an extensive range of electronic tools to enhance science
activities and effective communication within the planetary science community, can be
found on the LPI website.
4.1.4 Planetary Cartography Program
NASA has a long-term agreement with the USGS to provide a variety of cartographic
support functions for NASA researchers through its Planetary Cartography Program.
This support includes:
● Integrated Software for Imagers and Spectrometers (ISIS);
● Search capability for raw planetary image data (PILOT);
● On-demand production of higher-level data products (Map Projection On the
Web);
● Coordination of IAU approval of nomenclature;
● Training in planetary GIS methods MRCTR GIS Lab;
● Production of digital terrain models (DTMs) from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
(MRO) High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) stereo.
For cartography support beyond what is provided by the Planetary Cartography
Program, the USGS is willing to join proposal teams to produce or assist in the
production of specific cartographic tools or products. However, the USGS is required to
recoup the full cost of such activities in the proposal budget. Visit the Astrogeology
Science Center website or email jhagerty@usgs.gov for further information.

C.1-19
4.2 Astromaterials
NASA’s Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at the NASA Johnson Space
Center provides access to all NASA-controlled samples of astromaterials, including
those returned by the Apollo program and the Genesis and Stardust missions, a subset
of particles returned by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Hayabusa
missions, interplanetary dust particles collected by high-altitude aircraft, meteorites
collected in Antarctica by U.S. field parties, and a variety of space-flown microparticle
impact collectors. Peer review of sample requests are provided by the Astromaterials
Allocation Review Board (formerly part of CAPTEM). For information on how to obtain
any of the specimens in these collections, see the Astromaterials Acquisition and
Curation Office website or contact:
Office of the Curator
Code KT
Johnson Space Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Houston, TX 77058-3696
4.3 Research Facilities
The following facilities are available to supported investigators. If their use is
anticipated, this use must be discussed and justified in the submitted proposals
(especially note the provision for such discussion in the proposal section entitled
Facilities and Equipment).
Note: for any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must state which
team member has access or provide a letter of support from the facility (or resource)
confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the proposed period.
4.3.1 NASA-provided High-End Computational (HEC) Facilities
Those investigators whose research requires high-performance computing should refer
to the Summary of Solicitation, Section I(e), "NASA-provided High-End Computing
Resources." This section describes the opportunity for successful proposers to ROSES
to apply for computing time on either of two NASA computing facilities, i.e., at the NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center's (GSFC's) Computational and Information Sciences and
Technology Office, or at the NASA Ames Research Center’s (ARC’s) Advanced
Supercomputing Division. Proposers needing access to these facilities should follow the
instructions in Section I(e) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Further information
on computing capabilities may be found on the NASA High-End Computing website.
4.3.2 Planetary Aeolian Facility (PAL)
The Planetary Aeolian Facility at the NASA Ames Research Center consists of wind
tunnels that can be used to simulate atmosphere-surface interactions on Earth, Mars
and Titan. For more information, contact David Williams (David.Williams@asu.edu) or
consult the PAL Guidebook for Proposers.
4.3.3 Reflectance Experiment Laboratory (RELAB)
The RELAB facility at Brown University provides a mechanism for researchers to obtain
high-quality laboratory spectra of natural or synthetic materials for use in compositional,

C.1-20
geologic, and remote sensing applications. RELAB is partially supported by NASA as a
multiuser spectroscopy facility, and researchers are invited, but not required, to visit the
laboratory in person during sample measurements. Laboratory time and most sample
measurements are made available at no charge to investigators funded by NASA. If a
proposal to NASA requires acquisition of new spectra via RELAB in the VIS/NIR or mid-
IR, then the scope and justification must be provided in the submitted proposal. Data
acquired as part of NASA-funded research are made available to the investigator
immediately after measurement and are made publicly available three years after
measurement. The RELAB website at http://www.planetary.brown.edu/relab/ is down
temporarily but interested parties may refer to the RELAB database archive and online
search tool at https://pds-speclib.rsl.wustl.edu/ and contact the Science Manager of
RELAB, Ralph Milliken (Ralph_Milliken@brown.edu) or the Operations Manager,
Takahiro Hiroi (Takahiro_Hiroi@brown.edu).
4.3.4 NASA Ames Vertical Gun Range (AVGR)
The NASA AVGR is a national facility funded by the NASA Science Mission Directorate
to enable investigations of impact phenomena and processes. Exploratory or proof-of-
concept programs requiring a limited number of experiments can be accommodated at
no cost. More extensive programs are subject to review, to assess feasibility and cost
effectiveness. Any need for extensive use of the AVGR should be explicitly described in
the proposal. The proposal budget should include an estimate of usage costs. A letter of
support from the AVGR is required. For more information, potential users of the AVGR
should contact John Karcz (john.s.karcz@nasa.gov).
4.3.5 NASA Venus In-situ Chamber Investigations (VICI)
The NASA Venus In-situ Chamber Investigations (VICI) is a pressure chamber that
enables testing of components and small instruments under temperatures and
pressures that simulate Venus surface conditions. Lower temperatures and pressures
can also be accommodated. Exploratory or proof-of-concept programs requiring a
limited number of experiments/tests can be accommodated for minimal cost. Extensive
use of the chamber should be described in the proposal and is subject to review by VICI
personnel, to assess feasibility and cost effectiveness. Any use of the chamber and its
corresponding costs should be included in the proposal budget. A letter of support from
the VICI facility is required. For additional information, please contact Natasha Johnson
(natasha.m.johnson@nasa.gov).
4.3.6 NASA Glenn Extreme Environment Rig (GEER)
The Glenn Extreme Environment Rig (GEER) is a simulation rig designed to provide an
asset to the scientific and engineering communities to perform laboratory experiments
and/or technology developments, or instrument/hardware qualifications, in extreme
simulated environments. When fully operational, GEER can accurately simulate the
temperatures, pressures, and chemistry of the atmospheres of planetary bodies,
including the conditions found on the surface of Venus. The chamber is cylindrical, with
an interior diameter and length of three feet and four feet, respectively. The chamber is
rated for pressures up to 100 bar at 500°C. Eight individually controllable gas streams
are available. Interested parties should contact Tibor Kremic (Tibor.Kremic@nasa.gov)

C.1-21
for questions regarding status, availability, and any proposal related intentions. Some
additional information on the GEER is available on the GEER website.
4.3.7 USGS Astrogeology Science Center (ASC) Digital Terrain Models (DTMs)
The USGS Astrogeology Science Center (ASC) produces high-quality digital terrain
models (DTMs) for engineering (e.g., landing site characterization) and science. The
ASC can supply individual investigators with high-quality DTMs in support of NASA-
selected R&A investigations, replacing the "Photogrammetry Guest Facility" currently
operated by ASC. Proposers who wish to use these DTMs must solicit a Confirmation of
Technical Specifications Letter from the ASC indicating their ability to produce the
requested DTMs and to provide them at no cost to the proposer. This approach is
directly analogous to that currently used for the Planetary Geologic Mapping Program.
Since ROSES-2020, DTMs will be generated using only HiRISE stereo data, and the
total number of DTMs generated will necessarily be limited. It is anticipated that the
program will expand to additional data sets in future years. Further information
pertaining to DTM generation by the USGS is available by visiting the USGS
Astrogeology Planetary Photogrammetry Lab's DTM page. Proposers may request
further information by contacting the USGS ASC photogrammetry staff at
planetaryphotogrammetry@usgs.gov with "DTM_REQUEST" in the email subject line.

C.1-22
C.2 EMERGING WORLDS
NOTICE: June 22, 2022. In Section 5, the main POC for this program
has been changed to Kathleen Vander Kaaden. New text is in bold.
This program element does not have a proposal due date. Proposals
may be submitted at any time, pending certain eligibility timing issues
related to resubmissions and duplicate proposal avoidance, see
Section 4.1.
1. Introduction
The goal of Emerging Worlds is to advance scientific knowledge of the Solar System by
investigating how it formed and evolved. Emerging Worlds supports basic research in
planetary science to aid in the development of missions, and to provide context for the
interpretation of Solar System observations that are relevant to its formation and early
evolution. A wide range of investigations will be covered, including, but not limited to,
theoretical studies, analytical and numerical modeling, sample-based studies of
extraterrestrial materials, laboratory studies, and synthesis of previous work.
2. Scope of Program
The Emerging Worlds program solicits research proposals to conduct scientific
investigations related to understanding (2.1) the formation of our Solar System; and/or
(2.2) the early evolution of our Solar System.
2.1 Formation of our Solar System
For the purposes of this solicitation, the "formation of our Solar System" is considered to
begin with the onset of the collapse of the molecular cloud from which the Solar System
formed. Therefore, the following research areas are within scope of Emerging Worlds:
● Studies of the materials present and processes that led to the onset of Solar
System formation.
● Studies of all aspects of materials present and processes occurring in and
affecting the protoplanetary disk, including those occurring on bodies of any size
during this stage of Solar System evolution.
● Studies related to the accretion of Solar System bodies after dissipation of the
protoplanetary disk.
Studies of the formation of planetary systems in general fall within the scope of
Emerging Worlds, but only if the proposal makes an explicit, clear, and cogent case that
the specific research proposed will result in increased understanding of the formation of
our own Solar System. Studies of exoplanetary systems that do not have direct
consequences for our Solar System are not within scope of Emerging Worlds (see
Section 3.1.1).
Studies of the formation of abiotic organic molecules in the early Solar System are
generally within the scope of Emerging Worlds, but only if the proposal makes an
explicit, clear, and cogent case that the specific research advances the understanding
or the origin and early evolution of the Solar System. Studies of the formation of
prebiotic organic molecules that focus on the origin of life are not within scope of
Emerging Worlds (see Section 3.1.3).
C.2-1
2.2 Early evolution of the Solar System
For the purposes of this solicitation, "early evolution" processes include those that
played a role in establishing the structure of the Solar System and its planetary bodies:
● For studies of the dynamical evolution of the Solar System, Emerging Worlds
focuses on processes that happened and were most prominent between the time
of Solar System formation and the time that large planetary bodies were in or
near their modern configuration.
● For studies of the chemistry and physics of collisions and impacts in the Solar
System, Emerging Worlds focuses on those processes that occurred and were
most prominent during the dynamical evolution of the Solar System up to the
time that large planetary bodies were in or near their modern orbital
configuration, and which had significant effect on the structure of the target body
or its planetary system.
● For studies of the large planetary bodies themselves, including the Moon,
Emerging Worlds focuses on the period of planetary evolution through the end of
the major period of accretion or the time of global differentiation (the separation
into compositionally distinct layers, including their atmospheres, cryospheres,
and hydrospheres), whichever is later. Such studies could be about the process
of accretion or differentiation, or other processes that occur on or within large
Solar System bodies through this period.
● For studies of processes that occurred on small bodies, the intent is to cover
processes that can be reasonably inferred to have occurred and were most
prominent up to the time that large planetary bodies were in or near their modern
configuration.
2.3 Programmatic priorities
Emerging Worlds prioritizes investigations that directly address important problems in
the origin and evolution of our Solar System. Proposals should clearly explain the
problem(s) to be solved or the hypothesis(es) to be tested and present a work plan that
will allow the investigation to address these problems or test these hypotheses within
the funding period.
2.4 Long-term projects
The Emerging Worlds program recognizes that some projects may require more than a
single funding period to bring to completion, or to demonstrate or develop a new
technique or a new application of an established technique. Proposals that seek to do
this are acceptable: they must clearly explain the problem(s) to be solved or the
hypothesis(es) to be tested, and present a complete work plan that will allow the
proposing team to ultimately reach the scientific objectives, even if such completion may
not be possible within a single award period. The work plan must include detailed
milestones to be accomplished during the initial award period, as well as milestones
envisaged for future work. Selection of such a proposal does not constitute a guarantee
of future funding for the completion of the project, and subsequent peer-reviewed
proposals would be required in order to continue the work past the initial award period.

C.2-2
2.5 Demonstration of Relevance
As stated in Section 3.6 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, all
proposals, including those submitted to this program element, will be evaluated for
relevance to the solicitation. Although proposals submitted to this program element do
not require a separate or explicit statement of relevance, proposers are strongly
encouraged to address the question of relevance in the Scientific/Technical/
Management (S/T/M) portion of the proposal.
To be found relevant to the solicitation, all proposals submitted to this program element
must demonstrate how they will advance our understanding of the origin or early
evolution of the Solar System, as defined in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
3. Programmatic Information
3.1 Exclusions
Proposers are advised to read each of the calls referenced below prior to submitting
proposals.
3.1.1 Studies of Exoplanets
General studies of the formation of planetary systems may be relevant to either the
Exoplanet Research Program (XRP, program element F.3) or Emerging Worlds. Those
proposals which make an explicit, clear, and cogent case that the specific research
proposed will result in increased understanding of the formation of our own Solar
System may be submitted to Emerging Worlds. Others should refer to the XRP
solicitation.
3.1.2 Studies of Habitability
Research aimed at investigating the habitability of planetary bodies in our Solar System
or in other planetary systems are not within scope of Emerging Worlds, but may be
within scope of the Habitable Worlds program element (program element F.4).
3.1.3 Studies of the Origin of Life
Studies of the formation of prebiotic organic molecules where the research is
specifically focused on the origin of life are not within scope of Emerging Worlds, but
may be within scope of Exobiology (program element C.5).
3.1.4 Earth Science Studies
Emerging Worlds does not, in general, support Earth science investigations, including
research on terrestrial analog samples, unless relevance to the formation and early
evolution of other planetary bodies or planetary science in general can be firmly
established. Terrestrial research should address: key geochemical processes in early
planetary evolution; terrestrial history in terms of general Solar System processes; or
the reasons for differences in early evolution among the various planetary bodies;
including Earth, the Moon, and parent bodies of meteorites. Proposals to analyze
terrestrial samples should clearly explain the nature of the planetary connection, as this
will be a key factor in determining relevance to Emerging Worlds.

C.2-3
 3.1.5 Mission Data Analysis
The Planetary Science Division solicits proposals that use, analyze, and/or enhance the
scientific return of certain planetary missions through its data analysis programs
(DAPs). Emerging Worlds does not accept proposals that are eligible for submission to
a DAP. The DAP solicitations should be consulted prior to the submission of any
proposal that uses planetary mission data.
3.1.6 Returned Sample Analysis
Through the Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples (LARS) program (program
element C.16), NASA solicits proposals focused on the analysis of astromaterials
returned by planetary missions (e.g., Stardust, Genesis, Hayabusa), and on the
development of analytical methods for samples returned from these or future sample-
return missions. The Emerging Worlds program element does not accept proposals that
are eligible for submission to LARS. (Note that LARS does not support work on samples
returned by the Apollo program; relevant work on Apollo samples may be submitted to
Emerging Worlds.)
3.1.7 Later Evolution of the Solar System
Investigations into processes that do not satisfy the definition of "early evolution" in
Section 2.2, above, are not within scope of Emerging Worlds, but may be within scope
of Solar System Workings (program element C.3). Proposals considering processes
near the boundary of early and later evolution, or where there is ambiguity, may be
within scope of either Emerging Worlds or Solar System Workings, however the same
work may not be submitted to both program elements in the same ROSES year. See
Section 3.2 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview for restrictions
on resubmission of proposals.
3.1.8 Science-enabling projects
Proposals with the primary goal to enable future research, rather than directly address
problems about the origin and early evolution of the Solar System, are not within the
scope of Emerging Worlds, unless part of a long-term research plan as explained in
Section 2.4. Alternatively, science-enabling projects may be within the scope of PDAR
(program element C.4).
3.1.9 Studies of the Sun
Emerging Worlds does not solicit proposals whose primary focus is on the formation or
early evolution of the Sun (or protosun).
3.2 Duration and Size of Awards
Typical proposals to Emerging Worlds seek three years of funding or fewer. Please
refer to Section 3.4 of C.1, for instructions on submitting requests for more than three
years.
In recent years awards made in response to proposals to Emerging Worlds have
averaged $175-195K per year, depending on the nature of the work proposed. The
2014-2020 Emerging Worlds selections are included in the spreadsheet on the SARA

C.2-4
grant stats web page, and abstracts are made available through NSPIRES. Proposers
should request the funding they actually need to conduct the research proposed.
3.3 Requests for the Purchase of Instrumentation
Proposals may include requests for the purchase or upgrade of instrumentation needed
to perform the work. Refer to Section 3.11 of C.1 for instructions on how to propose
instrumentation costing more than $50,000.
4. Proposal Preparation, Submission, and Evaluation
4.1 Rolling Submissions – No Fixed Due Date
Proposals to this program element (among others in Appendix C) may be submitted at
any time without any preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1
proposal. See Section 2.4 of C.1 of the Planetary Science Research Program Overview
and https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD. Programs such as this one with No
Due Date (NoDD) will review proposals throughout the year with a cadence that will
depend on the rate at which proposals are submitted. The NSPIRES page for this
program element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that is simply the end date for
the current ROSES, after which proposals may be submitted to the program element
with the same name in the next ROSES. The standard rule for use of mission data has
been that unless otherwise specified, spacecraft mission data to be used in proposed
work must be available in the Planetary Data System (PDS), or an equivalent, publicly
accessible, archive, at least 30 days prior to the full proposal due date.
For NoDD programs such as this one, the 30-day rule applies to the submission date of
the proposal rather than the due date. For more information regarding NoDD programs,
please refer to the NoDD informational PDF posted under other documents on the
NSPIRES page for this program element.
4.2 Proposal formatting and content
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in C.1 and Section
IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. See C.1 for a discussion of the
consequences of non-compliance.
We recommend, but do not require, the following practices for clarity in writing
proposals:
● Please do not use numbered callouts to bibliographic references in the S/T/M
section. Use the author name(s) and year.
● There is no need to present budgets broken down by federal fiscal years.
Budgets need only be organized by award years.
● Place clear titles on all subsections of your budget.
4.3 Modular Proposals
NASA has the option of funding only part of a proposal, if that part of the proposal
receives a significantly better evaluation on intrinsic merit, relevance, or cost, or if only
part of the overall project fits within the program budget. In order to be considered for
this type of "descoping", a proposal must be modular, with clearly identified, separable
tasks. A descopable task is a self-contained sub-project, which in and of itself is
C.2-5
relevant to Emerging Worlds and of high scientific merit. Proposals that do not describe
modular tasks will not generally be considered for descoped funding. Note that a
proposal containing identified tasks does not require presentation of a separate budget
for each task.
4.4 Evaluation of proposals
All proposals will be evaluated for Intrinsic Merit, Cost, and Relevance, as specified in
Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
4.5 Data Management Plans
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(DMP). As described in Section 3.7 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview the DMP must be placed in a special section, no longer than two pages in
length, that immediately follows the References and Citations section for the
Scientific/Technical/Management portion of the proposal.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for ~$5M
first year of new awards
Number of new awards ~30, see Section 3.2
pending adequate proposals
of merit
Maximum duration of awards 4 years; shorter-term proposals (1-3 years) are
typical; fourth year must be well justified.
Neither Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program.
Due date for proposals Proposals may be submitted at any time until 11:59
pm Eastern time on March 29, 2023.
Planning date for start of
~6 months after the proposal submission date
investigation
Page limit for the central STM 15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022
section of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
content of proposals Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of the
submission of proposals NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is permitted.

C.2-6
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number
for downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
[Updated June 22, 2022]
Point of contact concerning
this program
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-EW
Kathleen Vander Kaaden
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 779-3088
Email: HQ-EMERGINGWORLDS@mail.nasa.gov
C.2-7
C.3 U SOLAR SYSTEM W ORKINGS
NOTICE: proposers should not assume that NSF will provide access
to the Antarctic for the 2022-2023 field season. See Section 4.5.
This program element does not have a proposal due date. Proposals
may be submitted at any time, pending certain eligibility timing issues
related to resubmissions and duplicate proposal avoidance (see
Section 3). 0T

Section 2.1 Exclusions has been updated, to reflect that SSW now
excludes investigations involving archival data from Earth-based
observations, as these investigations are now covered by Appendix
C.6, Solar System Observations (SSO).
The Solar System Workings (SSW) program no longer requires a
separate relevance statement.
1. U Scope of Program
The Solar System Workings (SSW) program element supports research into
atmospheric, climatological, dynamical, geologic, geophysical, and geochemical
processes occurring on planetary bodies, satellites, and other minor bodies (including
rings) in the Solar System. This call seeks to address the physical and chemical
processes that affect the surfaces, interiors, atmospheres, exospheres, and
magnetospheres of planetary bodies.
The Solar System Workings program is open to investigations relevant to surfaces and
interiors of planetary bodies, planetary atmospheres, rings, orbital dynamics, and
exospheres and magnetospheres. The Solar System Workings program values the
potential of interdisciplinary efforts to solve key scientific questions. The program also
values research in comparative planetology. Research supported by this call may cover
a wide range of investigations including theoretical studies, data synthesis relevant to
the physical and chemical processes affecting planetary systems, sample-based studies
of extraterrestrial materials, laboratory studies that examine physical or chemical
properties and processes, studies of sample or analog materials of other Solar System
bodies, field studies of terrestrial analogs of planetary environments, and theoretical,
analytical, and numerical modeling of physical or chemical processes.
This program seeks to understand processes that occur throughout the Solar System,
as well as those specific to individual objects and systems, but inform our understanding
of the fundamental processes at work. A non-exhaustive list of areas of research called
for in this program element follows. For conciseness in this list, the term ‘planetary’
refers to Solar System objects other than the Sun (ranging in size from small objects,
like comets and asteroids, through natural satellites, and up to planets) and structures
(such as atmospheres, ionospheres, and ring systems).
• Surfaces and Interiors
o Interior structure. Determine the internal structure, chemistry, and dynamics of
Solar System objects and identify and understand the physical and chemical
processes that occur within these structures.

C.3-1
 o Planetary magnetism. Determine the configuration of planetary magnetic fields
and understand how and why they are formed and vary through time. Catalog
remnant magnetic fields in order to probe the history of planetary dynamos, as
well as core-mantle structures and dynamics.
o Mantle Evolution. Understand the chemical evolution and physical structure of
mantles and how they change over time.
o Lithospheres. Identify objects with evidence of active or ancient tectonics and
understand the processes and inputs that cause tectonic activity to start or stop.
Understand the role that regional and global stress fields play in the formation of
large-scale surface features and how those features inform studies of the global
structure and dynamics.
o Volcanism. Identify the physical and chemical variations in volcanic activity
throughout the Solar System. Investigate how volcanic activity can provide
insight into interior processes. Understand how volcanic activity can modify
planetary surfaces and atmospheres.
o Evolution and modification of surfaces. Characterize and understand the
chemical, mineralogical, and physical features of planetary surfaces (such as
geologic formations and impact craters) and fluid inventories that interact with
the surface (including hydrospheres, cryospheres, atmospheres, and other
volatile reservoirs). Develop theoretical and experimental bases for
understanding these features in the context of the varying conditions through
time after formation.
• Planetary atmospheres
o Composition and evolution. Characterize the chemical composition (including
isotope and trace species) of planetary atmospheres and of atmospheric
structures (such as haze layers). Understand the vertical mixing, convective
profiles, and chemical processes that control the stability of, the losses from,
and the evolution of planetary atmospheres. Determine where atmospheric
composition deviates from that expected from solar-nebula material and
understand alternative sources and their implications for atmospheric evolution.
o Dynamics and thermal structure. Identify and investigate varied features of Solar
System atmospheres, such as Venus’ greenhouse effect and Martian dust
storms. Accurately describe wind patterns and cloud features; determine their
temporal variability, their role in heat and momentum transfer, and other
atmospheric processes. Characterize vertical structure and the transport of
mass and heat at all scales, including the effects of coupling with planetary
surfaces and with the environment above the atmosphere.
o Climate change. Characterize planetary climates over short and long time
scales by reconstructing the history of atmospheric volatile inventories and
understanding the chemical processes that affect them. Resolve the role that
atmospheric circulation, dynamics, surface (e.g., volcanic activity) and external
(e.g., solar radiation) conditions, and disruptive events play in providing stability
for, cyclic modulation of, or perturbations in the global climate. Compare
climates and atmospheres among different planetary bodies at present and over
time.

C.3-2
• Rings
o Composition and structure. Determine the three-dimensional structure of ring
systems and the effects that moons and moonlets have on them. Characterize
the chemical and size composition of ring system particles, including transient,
diffuse, and dust rings.
o Processes and evolution. Understand the physical and chemical processes
active in ring systems and the interactions these systems have with planetary
atmospheres, magnetospheres, and planetary bodies. Model the effects these
interactions have in order to identify temporal changes of the rings on short and
long timescales.
• Orbital dynamics
o Orbital characteristics and evolution. Understand the gravitational interactions
among groups of planetary bodies (e.g., satellites of a planet, an asteroid family,
planets and other Sun-orbiting objects) and how they affect orbital
characteristics and stability. Characterize the non-gravitational forces acting on
objects and understand their effect on orbital characteristics. Identify and
characterize dust populations from planetary sources and understand their
dynamics within in the Solar System.
o Orbital relationships. Characterize the creation, and understand the evolution, of
asteroid families. Understand the effects of orbital relationships (such as orbital
resonances between satellites) on planetary interiors, surfaces (including liquids
and ices), and atmospheres.
• Plasma environments
o Fundamental plasma processes. Understand the role that localized plasma
waves and plasma processes (including reconnection and instabilities) have in
regulating large-scale dynamics; characterize the energy that is produced and
carried by these phenomena and how they couple distant regions.
o Sources and sinks of mass and energy. Characterize the neutral and plasma
sources in planetary magnetospheres (including induced magnetospheres),
considering the contribution of internal sources (such as moons or rings), the
solar wind, and planetary atmospheres (including cometary outgassing).
Understand the relative importance of sources of charged and neutral particle
energization. Characterize and understand the mass and energy exchange with
other objects or structures (such as the planet, the solar wind, or rings) and the
loss from the system.
o Magnetospheric processes and dynamics. Characterize magnetospheric
processes and dynamics; determine how they cause mass and energy to flow
through the system and couple these processes to the ionosphere and solar
wind. Identify similarities and differences in magnetospheric processes and
dynamics between the planets. Determine the relative importance of dynamics
driven by internal and external energy sources across the magnetospheres, and
understand how the different planetary magnetic field configurations affect these
dynamics. Refine and exploit our understanding of electromagnetic radiation
(e.g., auroral emissions and planetary radio signals) and particle emissions
(e.g., dust streams and energetic charged and neutral particles) in order to
remotely study dynamics and processes.

C.3-3
 o Plasma interactions with structures and bodies. Determine mass and energy
exchange with atmospheres and surfaces; understand the physical and
chemical processes that this coupling may drive. Describe the interactions
between the magnetospheric plasma and planetary objects, dust, and gas
populations; characterize the energy flow and chemical processes within these
coupled systems. Characterize the processes associated with space weathering
and its effects on optical, spectroscopic, physical, and mechanical properties.
Due to the broad nature of this program’s mandate, it is open to a wide range of targets
of interest and methods of investigation, but only accepts scientific investigations. Each
proposal must present a scientific investigation to be conducted, what data and
resources will be used, the investigation’s methodology, and how the investigation will
achieve closure of the proposal’s goals. Although this program encourages the
utilization of data from planetary missions and studies that produce data products (e.g.,
cartographic products, calibration data, moments calculations) to inform science
investigations, it does not accept proposals eligible for funding by the Data Analysis
Programs or the Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration Program (see Section 2.1).
2. U Programmatic Information
2.1 Exclusions
U

Proposals in the following topic areas are not solicited through SSW and are generally
more applicable to other Planetary Science Division (PSD) program elements.
Proposals that are relevant to more than one call may be submitted to either but, in
such cases, it is recommended that PIs contact Program Officers to discuss the best
program for their proposal. Note that C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, explicitly prohibits concurrent submission of the same (or nearly the same)
proposals to multiple PSD programs.
Specific areas not solicited as part of SSW include:
• Studies of the formation and early evolution of the Solar System.
• Studies of habitability.
• Studies that primarily use, analyze, and/or enhance the scientific return of certain
planetary missions, which have Data Analysis Programs.
• Studies of exoplanets or exoplanetary systems.
• Studies focused primarily on the Earth.
• Studies that do not include a science investigation, but focus on producing
higher-order data products.
• Studies that involve new and/ or archival Earth-based observations, including
ground, airborne, or space-based observations or surveys.
2.2 Duration of Awards
U

Typical proposals to Solar System Workings seek three years of funding or fewer.
Please refer to Section 3.4 of C.1, for instructions on submitting requests for more than
three years. Pilot studies and projects to demonstrate or develop a new technique or a
new application of an established technique, usually for less than three years in
duration, may also be proposed.

C.3-4
2.3 Requests for the Purchase of Instrumentation
U

Proposals may include requests for the purchase or upgrade of instrumentation needed
to perform the work. Refer to Section 3.11 of C.1, for instructions on how to propose
instrumentation costing more than $50,000.
3. U Proposal Submission Process and Formatting
Proposals to this program element (among others in Appendix C see Section 1.1 of C.1
of the Planetary Science Research Program Overview) may be submitted at any time
without any preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1 proposal. The
NSPIRES page for this program element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that is
simply the end date for the current ROSES, after which proposals may be submitted to
the program element with the same name in the next ROSES. Programs such as this
one with No Due Date (NoDD) will review proposals throughout the year with a cadence
that will depend on the rate at which proposals are submitted. For more information
regarding NoDD programs, please refer to the NoDD informational PDF posted under
other documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element and
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD .
34TU U34T

Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of
these rules is sufficient grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
4. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
4.1 Limits on Use of Mission Data
The standard rule for use of mission data has been that unless otherwise specified,
spacecraft mission data to be used in proposed work must be available in the Planetary
Data System (PDS), or an equivalent, publicly accessible, archive, at least 30 days prior
to the full proposal due date. For NoDD programs such as this one, the 30-day rule
applies to the submission date of the proposal rather than the due date. If the data to be
analyzed have issues that might represent an obstacle to analysis, the proposers must
demonstrate clearly and satisfactorily how such potential difficulties will be overcome.
4.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Please refer to Section 4 of C.1 for a detailed list of the data and astromaterials
resources, and facilities available to proposers to this program element, and how to use
them. If their use is anticipated, this should be discussed and justified in the submitted
proposal (especially note the provision for such discussion in the proposal section
entitled Facilities and Equipment). As mentioned in Section 4.3 of C.1 the Planetary
Science Research Program Overview, for any facility required for the proposed effort,
the proposal must state which team member has access or provide a letter of resource
support from the facility or resource confirming that it is available for the proposed use
during the proposed period.
4.3 Data Management Plans
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(see Section 3.7 of C.1). This must be placed in a special section, no longer than two

C.3-5
pages in length, that immediately follows the References and Citations section for the
Scientific/Technical/Management portion of the proposal.
4.4 Geologic Maps
Proposers who plan investigations involving geologic mapping should consult Section
3.9 of C.1, for guidance on submission and requirements for publication of U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) maps. The scientific goal of such a geologic map product
should be clearly explained and justified.
4.5 Antarctica
The Solar System Workings program is accepting proposals for work in Antarctica.
However, based on the backlog for access to the Antarctic, proposers should not
assume that NSF will provide access to the Antarctic for the 2022-2023 field season.
For now, proposers that require Antarctic access should plan for a future season or
demonstrate that they have access via other means and provide documentation
confirming this access.
For projects that require Antarctic fieldwork, proposers must include all costs associated
with this fieldwork in their proposal budgets.
For Antarctic fieldwork supported by the United States Antarctic Program (USAP), these
costs include those required for physical qualification exams, airfare, lodging, and per
diem for travel to Christchurch, New Zealand (departure point for Antarctica,
include seven days in Christchurch as margin for weather-related delays), any required
cargo transportation (origin to Pt. Heuneme, California, and return), and any specialty
materials or large quantities of stocked materials required in Antarctica. Proposers must
also include costs associated with logistics support provided by the USAP via the
National Science Foundation (NSF).
To obtain these costs, complete an Antarctic Logistics Requirements and Field Plan,
and return to Jessie Crain, Antarctic Research Support Manager jlcrain@nsf.gov .
34T 34T

Requirements for this document, and other guidance for conducting field work in the
Antarctic, are may be found at:
https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/ant/solicitation_resources/prop_prep_info.jsp . Please
34T 34T

allow one month for processing to receive the USAP cost estimate. Projects receiving
U.S. Antarctic Program support for fieldwork in the Antarctic shall include the following
acknowledgement in publications resulting from the project: "Logistical support for this
project in Antarctica was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation through the
U.S. Antarctic Program".
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first
~$7.0M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
~40
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 4 years; shorter-term proposals (1-3 years) are
typical; fourth year must be explicitly and well
justified.

C.3-6
Neither Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this Email to hq-ssw@mail.nasa.gov is strongly
program, both of whom share the preferred.
following postal address:
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC
20546-0001
Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 pm Eastern time on March 29, 2023.
~6-8 months after the proposal submission date
15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation.
This program is relevant to the planetary science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4 of
34T 34T
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
34T 34T
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
34T 34T
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
34T 34T
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
34T 34T
NNH22ZDA001N-SSW
Delia Santiago-Materese (Lead)
Email: delia.santiago-materese@nasa.gov
34T 34T
Henry Throop (Deputy)
Email: henry.throop@nasa.gov
34T 34T
C.3-7
C.4 PLANETARY DATA ARCHIVING AND RESTORATION PROGRAM
NOTICE: August 1, 2022. Nicholas Lang has been added as a
secondary POC for this program element. New text is in bold.
This year the program will not be soliciting proposals for the
development or validation of software tools.
This program element does not have a proposal due date. Proposals
may be submitted at any time, pending certain eligibility timing issues
related to resubmissions and duplicate proposal avoidance, see
Section 3, below.
The information normally contained in a Data Management Plan is an
integral part of the proposal and evaluated as part of the merit, see
Section 2.5.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Programmatic Overview
The Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration (PDAR) program solicits proposals to:
generate higher-order data products; archive and restore data sets or products; create
or consolidate reference databases; generate new reference information, such as
laboratory measurements; and digitize data. Unlike previous years, this year the
program will not be soliciting proposals for the development or validation of software
tools.
The objective of this program element is to increase the amount and quality of digital
information and data products available for planetary science research and exploration.
Although it is expected that a small amount of data analysis, interpretation, or modeling
may be performed to validate any generated products, this program element does not
accept proposals in which the main focus is hypothesis-based planetary science.
For all types of proposals, the products of selected proposals must be made available to
the scientific community. Data products must be archived in the NASA Planetary Data
System (PDS) or an equivalent archive (see Section 2.2 for a definition of an equivalent
archive). All proposals will be evaluated on the perceived impact of the new products or
datasets on future planetary science research and exploration.
Proposers to this program element will not provide a Data Management Plan as a two-
page addendum. Instead, this requirement is superseded by instructions in the sections
below (including Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5), which direct proposers to include more
detailed descriptions of data management-related activities into the body of the
Scientific/Technical/ Management section of proposals. Any addended Data
Management Plan will not be assessed as part of the review process.
Proposers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Planetary Data Ecosystem
Independent Review Board (PDE IRB) report, and the Lunar Critical Data Products
report.

C.4-1
1.2 Data Product Generation
Proposals to answer the need for analysis ready datasets as well as proposals to
generate new high-order data products or to improve or expand current high-order data
products are encouraged. Source data may be derived from NASA or other spaceflight
missions, astronomical observations, sample analyses, or other sources. These new
data products may include, but are not limited to, cartographic products and calibrated
or corrected datasets.
1.3 Data Set Restoration and Archiving
Proposals to archive complete datasets and/or to restore and archive incomplete
datasets (e.g., to re-extract, re-reduce, and/or recalibrate data to fill in fragmentary
datasets) will be considered. Such proposals must include: 1) an archiving plan (see
Section 4.3); 2) a description of how the data will be obtained; 3) a detailed plan for how
the data will be restored, if relevant; and 4) a description of documentation, calibration
data, and related software necessary to read and interpret the original and new
datasets. Community-identified datasets in need of preservation and restoration are
listed at https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/opportunities.
1.4 Reference Database Creation
Proposals that create and/or consolidate reference databases useful for planetary
science research will be considered. These databases may include, but are not limited
to, spectral libraries, chemical and physical properties of materials, and photographic
catalogs. The burden is on the proposer to demonstrate the demand for a proposed
database and its likelihood of advancing the current state of knowledge or resolving a
significant planetary question or problem.
1.5 Generation of New Reference Information
Proposals to make laboratory measurements, conduct experiments, or otherwise
generate new reference information that is intended for general use in planetary science
will be considered. Examples may include, but are by no means limited to, spectral
data, phase diagrams and equations of state, physical laws, optical constants, partition
coefficients, and thermodynamic properties of materials. Where the main product of the
proposal is a reference dataset, the proposal must include a plan to deposit the data in
the NASA PDS or an equivalent archive. The burden is on the proposer to demonstrate
the demand for a proposed reference product and its likelihood of advancing the current
state of knowledge or resolving a significant planetary question or problem.
1.6 Data Digitization
Proposals to recover datasets that currently are available only on media not readable by
modern computing equipment, or to digitize data that are only available in analog form
(e.g., printed matter, photographs, and manuscripts) will be considered. PDAR will
consider proposals that include the rental of specialty equipment and/or the hiring of
independent expertise to accomplish those tasks. Regardless of the method, the
proposal must demonstrate the capability and provide a plan to recover or digitize the
data. The burden is on the proposer to demonstrate the demand for the digitized
product and its likelihood of advancing the current state of knowledge or resolving a
significant planetary question or problem.

C.4-2
1.7 Software Tool Development and Validation
Unlike previous years, this year the program will not be soliciting proposals for the
development or validation of software tools.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 Merit Evaluation Criterion
As PDAR’s goals differ from other programs, the review of proposals submitted to this
program element will include merit factors not listed in the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers. In addition to the Guidebook criteria, all submitted proposals will be
evaluated on the following PDAR-specific merit factors:
1. The perceived impact of the new products or datasets on future planetary
science research and exploration. This factor includes an evaluation of the
proposal’s end products against the state-of-the-art and the demand for the
proposed product.
2. The uniqueness and/or time criticality of the proposed new products or datasets.
For this factor, historical significance may also be considered but cannot be the
sole justification for the effort.
3. The credibility of the proposed plan for dissemination and archiving. This factor
includes both the format that the data products would be in and how they would
be made available for the scientific community. For those proposals that would
use an archive other than NASA’s PDS sites, this factor includes an evaluation of
whether the repository is a PDS-equivalent archive (Section 2.2).
4. Any applicable factors described in Sections 1.2-1.7.
2.2 Definition of a PDS-equivalent archive
Equivalence of an archive to the NASA PDS is defined by a number of factors that
cover accessibility, reliability, usability, and other qualities.
Proposed archives are required to have the following features:
1. The archive shall be managed by someone other than the major data provider.
(Independence)
2. The archive shall be managed for the long-term (25 years at least).
(Sustainability)
3. The archive shall be accessible to the public (lay and scientific) without
preapproval. (Open Accessibility)
4. The archive shall ensure that data are searchable. (Searchability)
5. The archive shall ensure that data are citable. (Citability)
6. The archive shall be considered by its user community as the "standard" archive
for the subfield. (Preeminence)
7. The archive shall require that data products be submitted in standardized formats
and file types. (Standardization)
Proposed archives are preferred (but not required) to have the following features:
1. The archive should conduct independent peer reviews of data to assess usability
and completeness of data packages. (Peer Review)

C.4-3
 2. The archive should include documentation for its holdings such as user guides,
calibration descriptions, etc. (Documentation).
The following are some examples of PDS-equivalent archives: The HIgh-resolution
TRANsmission (HITRAN) molecular absorption database, Infrared Processing and
Analysis Center (IPAC) Infrared Science Archive (IRSA), NASA Space Science Data
Coordinated Archive (NSSDCA), Coordinated Data Analysis Web (CDAWeb), Minor
Planet Center (MPC). In addition, the PDS imaging node annex (PDS IMG annex) is
considered by PDAR to be PDS-equivalent for certain geospatial products that cannot
be ingested into the PDS. If a proposed work effort would deliver data products to an
archive other than PDS or one of those listed here, the proposal must demonstrate that
it meets the requirements above.
2.3 Exclusions
PDAR does not support scientific investigations for which the primary emphasis is data
analysis, fundamental planetary research, or instrument development. Proposers are
encouraged to consult C.1 Planetary Science Research Program Overview for the
appropriate program element to which they should submit.
Proposals for which the primary focus is on data to be used in investigations solicited by
the other Divisions are encouraged to consult Appendices A, B, D and E for information
on the appropriate program elements in those Appendices to which those proposals
should be submitted.
The PDAR element does not fund proposals primarily to acquire new ground- or space-
based observations or surveys; such proposals should be submitted to the Solar
System Observations program (see program element C.6).
Investigators funded by spaceflight missions who wish to apply to this program element
must clearly demonstrate in their proposal how the proposed research does not overlap
and is not redundant with duties or responsibilities already funded by their respective
mission(s). See C.1, The Planetary Science Division Research Program Overview, for
more information.
Proposals for topical conferences, workshops, or symposia related to this program
element may not be proposed through this program element. Proposers are encouraged
to pursue such submissions through ROSES F.2 Topical Workshops, Symposia, and
Conferences.
2.4 Duration and Size of Awards
The maximum funded duration of awards from C.4 is three years. Proposals for funding
of less than three years are highly encouraged for projects that can be completed on
shorter timescales. The appropriateness of the proposed funding period will be
reviewed, and adjustments may be requested.
The 2020 PDART selections are posted to the spreadsheet on the SARA grant stats
web page. The average year-one award size in PDART was and will remain in PDAR
~$150K, but the award sizes for this program span a wide range, depending on the
nature of the work. Proposers are encouraged to request funding that is actually needed

C.4-4
to conduct the proposed work. As always, the number of new awards will also depend
on the available budget.
2.5 Data Management Plans
Because data archiving is an integral part of PDAR and is evaluated as part of the merit,
a discussion of data management activities must be integrated as part of the
Science/Technical/Management portion of the proposal, no additional DMP section is
required or allowed for this program element. The discussion of data management
activities should include all relevant factors described in this element and should also
address factors outlined in C.1 Section 3.7.1.
2.6 Requests for the Purchase of Instrumentation
Proposals may include requests for the purchase or upgrade of instrumentation needed
to perform the work. Refer to Section 3.11 of C.1 for instructions on how to propose
instrumentation costing more than $50,000.
3. Proposal Submission Process
Proposals to this program element (among others in Appendix C) may be submitted at
any time without any preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1
proposal. See Section 1.1 of C.1 of the Planetary Science Research Program Overview
and https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD. The NSPIRES page for this program
element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that is simply the end date for the current
ROSES, after which proposals may be submitted to the program element with the same
name in the next ROSES. Programs such as this one with No Due Date (NoDD) will
review proposals throughout the year with a cadence that will depend on the rate at
which proposals are submitted. For more information regarding NoDD programs,
please refer to the NoDD informational PDF posted under other documents on the
NSPIRES page for this program element.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of
these rules is sufficient grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
4. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
4.1 Limits on Use of Data
For proposals that generate higher-order data products from NASA mission or NASA
instrument data or otherwise use such data in the development or testing of software,
the data to be used in proposed investigations must be available in the Planetary Data
System (PDS) or equivalent publicly accessible archive at least 30 days prior to the
proposal submission date. Spacecraft data that have not been obtained yet (i.e., future
mission data) or those that have not been accepted for distribution in approved archives
are not eligible for use in investigations. Regardless of the archive(s) used, if the data to
be analyzed have issues that might represent an obstacle to analysis, the proposers
must demonstrate clearly and satisfactorily how such potential difficulties will be
overcome. This 30-day rule does not apply to unarchived data from missions prior to the
creation of the PDS if the dataset in question will be archived to PDS through the
proposed project.

C.4-5
Proposals to digitize and/or archive data not currently available in a public archive must
demonstrate that the data to be used are available (such as a letter of support, if they
are owned by a private entity, or a detailed plan to locate and obtain the data from a
known repository), in a format suitable for the proposed work, and of sufficient quality to
achieve the goals set forth in the proposal. The proposal should further demonstrate a
familiarity with the data and an understanding of the work required to prepare the data
for future analysis and/or delivery to an appropriate public archive.
4.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Proposers are strongly advised to read C.1 The Planetary Science Division Research
Program Overview, for information on facilities and data sources that are available to
supported investigators. If their use is anticipated, this should be discussed and justified
in the submitted proposal (especially note the provision for such discussion in the
proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment). As mentioned in Section 4.3 of C.1
the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, for any facility required for the
proposed effort, the proposal must state which team member has access or provide a
letter of resource support from the facility or resource confirming that it is available for
the proposed use during the proposed period.
4.3 Data Archiving and Map Publication
Selected investigations are expected to result in data products that are of broad use to
the science community, including maps, data with improved calibrations, etc. PDAR
requires that data produced by selected investigations be archived in the Planetary Data
System (http://pds.nasa.gov/), or a PDS-equivalent archive, by the end of the award
period. Proposers should communicate with the PDS Discipline Node responsible for
curating similar data (links to the PDS Discipline Nodes are at http://pds.nasa.gov/) to
discuss procedures and requirements prior to proposing and to help with discerning the
most efficient way to archive the proposed data products. Proposers intending to
archive data or products in the PDS must obtain and include a letter of confirmation
from the appropriate Discipline Node that the PDS is willing to accept their submission.
It is the proposer’s responsibility to conform to PDS standards. All PDS submissions are
required to be in PDS4 format; if an exception is needed, please contact the lead
discipline scientist before submission of the proposal to discuss.
Proposed investigations of any planetary or satellite surface that are intended to result
in the publication of a Scientific Investigations Map (SIM) by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) should check the relevant box on the proposal Cover Page and clearly indicate
this intention in the Proposal Summary, as well as in the text of the proposal.
Investigators that intend to produce a USGS geologic map are required to include in
their proposal a confirmation of technical specification document obtained from the
USGS Map Coordinator. Proposers are advised to read C.1, The Planetary Science
Division Research Program Overview, for the USGS’s information on and requirements
for map production and publication.

C.4-6
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for
first year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Neither Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program.
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program element both whom
share this address:
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
~$1.8-2.3M
See Section 2.4
3 years
Proposals may be submitted at any time until 11:59
pm Eastern time on March 29, 2023.
~8 months after the proposal submission date.
15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA. See Section 2.1
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-PDAR
Doris Daou
Email: Doris.Daou@nasa.gov
and [added August 1, 2022]
Nicholas Lang
Email: nicholas.p.lang@nasa.gov
C.4-7
C.5 EXOBIOLOGY
NOTICE: This program element does not have a proposal due date.
Proposals may be submitted at any time, pending certain eligibility
timing issues related to resubmissions and duplicate proposal
avoidance, see Section 4, below.
PIs of awards from this program element may become members of the
Astrobiology Program Research Coordination Networks that are
relevant to their selected research. For more information, see Section
2.10 of this program element.
Topics regarding formation of organics and their delivery to planetary
surfaces are within scope of Exobiology, provided that the research is
focused on the origin of life, as described in Section 1 below.
Proposals to this program element are subject to a relevance
requirement in addition to and that supersedes those detailed in the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation; see Section 2.7 of this program
element. Proposals that do not fulfill these requirements may be
returned without review.
1. Scope of Program
The goal of NASA's Exobiology Program is to understand the origin, evolution,
distribution, and future of life in the Universe. Research is centered on the origin and
early evolution of life, the potential of life to adapt to different environments, and the
implications for life elsewhere. This research is conducted in the context of NASA’s
ongoing exploration of our stellar neighborhood and the identification of biosignatures
for in situ and remote sensing applications. For further information on the science scope
of Astrobiology, within which exobiology is located, please refer to the Astrobiology
Strategy which can be found on the Astrobiology web page
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/research/astrobiology-at-nasa/astrobiology-strategy/.
The areas of research emphases in this solicitation are as follows:
• Prebiotic Evolution
Research in the area of prebiotic evolution seeks to delineate the galactic and planetary
conditions conducive to the origin of life. Topics of interest include the formation of
prebiotic organic molecules and their delivery to planetary surfaces, the forms in which
prebiotic organic matter has been preserved in planetary materials, and determining
what chemical systems could have served as precursors of metabolic and replicating
systems on Earth and elsewhere, including alternatives to the current DNA-RNA-protein
basis for life. Also included are models of early environments on the Earth in which
organic chemical synthesis could occur. Laboratory and theoretical studies, as well as
related data-analysis, will be considered.
Topics not included are the formation and stability of habitable planets, or the study of
the formation of abiotic organic molecules where the research is not specifically focused
on the origin of life.

C.5-1
• Early Evolution of Life and the Biosphere
The goal of research into the early evolution of life and the biosphere is to determine the
nature of the most primitive organisms and the environment in which they evolved.
There are two natural repositories of evolutionary history available on Earth to
investigate: the molecular record in living organisms and the geological record. These
paired records are used to: (i) determine when and in what setting life first appeared
and the characteristics of the first successful living organisms; (ii) understand the
phylogeny and physiology of microorganisms, including extremophiles, whose
characteristics may reflect the nature of primitive environments; (iii) determine the
original nature of biological energy transduction, membrane function, and information
processing, including the construction of artificial chemical systems to test hypotheses
regarding the original nature of key biological processes; iv) investigate the
development of key biological processes and their environmental impact; v) investigate
the evolution of genes, pathways, and microbial species subject to long-term
environmental change relevant to the origin of life on Earth and the search for life
elsewhere; and vi) study the coevolution of microbial communities, and the interactions
within such communities, that drive major geochemical cycles, including the processes
through which new species are added to extant communities.
• Evolution of Advanced Life
Research associated with the study of the evolution of advanced life seeks to determine
the biological and environmental factors leading to the origin of eukaryotes and the
development of multicellularity on Earth and the potential distribution of complex life in
the Universe. This research includes studies of the processes associated with
endosymbiosis and the origin and early evolution of those biological factors that are
essential to multicellular life, such as developmental programs, intercellular signaling,
programmed cell death, the cytoskeleton, cellular adhesion control and differentiation, in
the context of the origin of advanced life.
Proposals aimed at investigation into evolution of individual taxa or properties
specifically of advanced multicellular life (e.g., neural systems, bipedalism, intelligence)
are not solicited at this time.
• Large scale environmental change and Macro-evolution
Research associated with the study of the macro-evolution of life on Earth includes an
evaluation of environmental factors such as the influence of latitudinal differences or
extraterrestrial (e.g., bolide impacts, orbital and solar variations, gamma-ray bursts, etc.)
and planetary processes ("Snowball Earth" events, rapid climate change, etc.) on the
large-scale evolution of life on Earth. Of particular interest are mass extinction and mass
radiation events.
• Biosignatures and Life Elsewhere
Research in this area focuses on relating what is known about the origin of life on Earth
to the potential for the origin and establishment of life under conditions prevailing on
other planetary bodies and basic research on the formation and preservation of
biosignatures under non-Earth conditions (e.g., Mars, Europa). This includes studies
that constrain or extend concepts of possible chemical evolution relevant to the origin,
evolution, and distribution of life. Additionally, research focused on defining,
C.5-2
understanding or characterizing "technosignatures" as specific types of biosignatures
indicative of intelligent life are included in this area. However, since the Exobiology
Program does not solicit proposals to apply biosignatures to particular environments,
proposals to search for technosignatures (e.g. radio signals from extrasolar planets that
may harbor intelligent life) are not included.
Biosignature studies of samples from Earth sites thought to be analogues of other
planetary environments that might potentially harbor life will be considered as part of
NASA's broader interest in the search for life in the Universe.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 General Information
Proposals are sought for projects within the scope of the Exobiology program.
Proposals submitted in response to this program element should be for new work that is
not currently supported by the program or for investigations that would extend to their
next logical phase those tasks that have been funded in the Exobiology program, but
whose periods of performance expired in the last year.
Although there is a place in the program for exploration of novel and relevant
environments, selection preference will be given to hypothesis-driven research projects.
2.2 Program Exclusions
Research aimed at investigating the habitability of planetary bodies in our Solar System
other than Earth or in other planetary systems may be in scope of the Habitable Worlds
program (F.4).
Proposals focused on the formation and stability of habitable planets, or the study of the
formation of abiotic organic molecules where the research is not specifically focused on
the origin of life may be in scope of the Emerging Worlds program (C.2).
2.3 Pilot Studies
Proposals for one- to two-year pilot studies to demonstrate or develop a new technique
or a new application of an established technique are encouraged. Such proposals may
also include the demonstration of a technique new to the proposer, but not new to the
field in general.
2.4 Duration and Size of Awards
Typical proposals to Exobiology seek three years of funding or fewer. Please refer to
Section 3.4 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, for instructions
on submitting requests for more than three years. The appropriateness of the proposed
funding period will be reviewed, and adjustments may be requested. Programmatic
balance may limit the opportunities for funding in some areas.
A wide range of award sizes is expected, depending on the nature and scope of the
work proposed. In order to maximize programmatic balance, we ask that you indicate,
on the cover pages via the NSPIRES web interface for this program element, whether
your proposed project is small (<$180K average annual budget), medium (between
$180K and $250K average annual budget) or large (>$250K average annual budget).

C.5-3
We anticipate most funded awards will be of the smallest size, and likely only a few
awards per year of the larger size.
2.5 Requests for the Purchase of Instrumentation
Proposals may include requests for the purchase or upgrade of instrumentation needed
to perform the work. Refer to Section 3.11 of C.1, for instructions on how to propose
instrumentation costing more than $50,000.
2.6 Development of Astrobiology Instruments
This solicitation does not request proposals for the development of advanced instrument
concepts and technologies as precursors to astrobiology flight instruments.
2.7 Relevance Statement Requirement
Proposals must discuss relevance to this program element in a (4000-character max)
text box on the cover pages via the NSPIRES web interface for this program element.
This section 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 NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation, and the omission of this section is sufficient reason for a proposal to be
returned without review.
The relevance discussion must explicitly refer to this program element and the section
of the solicitation to which the proposal is responsive. If the proposed work is close in
scope to research covered by any other program element, this discussion must also
justify why it is more relevant to this program element than that other program element.
This discussion may not be used to address the proposal’s intrinsic merit, budget
justification, or any other factor that remains in the 15-page main body, or any other
section, of the proposal.
2.8 NASA Postdoctoral Program Fellows
Grantees in the program are eligible to serve as mentors to NASA Postdoctoral
Program (NPP) Fellows. The tenure of a Fellow must begin before the end of the
Exobiology award – with at least two years of funding remaining on the parent award -
but may extend beyond it. Proposals from potential Fellows must be submitted through
the standard NPP process. The Astrobiology Program expects to select no more than
three Fellows associated with Exobiology research this year. More information about the
NASA Postdoctoral Program may be found at https://npp.orau.org/.
2.9 Antarctica
The Exobiology Program is not accepting proposals for work in Antarctica.
2.10 Research Coordination Networks
PIs of proposals selected for funding from this program element that cover a research
topic related to the newly established Research Coordination Networks are eligible to
elect to become members of the Steering Committees of these Research Coordination
Networks (RCNs, see: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/astrobiology-program-faqs/).
Relevance to an RCN is not an evaluation criterion for proposals to this program
element, and eligibility for participation in an RCN does not indicate that additional

C.5-4
research funding will be provided. RCNs bring together scientists from many disciplines
with different objectives. The goals of the currently active RCNs are:
• NExSS: to investigate the diversity of exoplanets and to learn how their history,
geology, and climate interact to create the conditions for life. For more information
see https://nexss.info/.
• NfoLD: to investigate life detection research, including biosignature creation and
preservation, as well as related technology development. For more information see
https://nfold.org.
• PCE3: to investigate the delivery, synthesis, and fate of small molecules under the
conditions of the Early Earth, and the subsequent formation of proto-biological
molecules and pathways that lead to systems harboring the potential for life. For
more information see http://prebioticchem.info/.
• NOW: to advance comparative studies to characterize Earth and other ocean
worlds across their interiors, oceans, and cryospheres; to investigate their
habitability; to search for biosignatures; and to understand life—in relevant ocean
world analogues and beyond. (For more information see:
https://oceanworlds.space)
3. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
3.1 Limits on Use of Mission Data
The standard rule for use of mission data has been that unless otherwise specified,
spacecraft mission data to be used in proposed work must be available in the Planetary
Data System (PDS), or an equivalent, publicly accessible, archive, at least 30 days prior
to the full proposal due date. For NoDD programs such as this one, the 30-day rule
applies to the submission date of the proposal rather than the due date. If the data to be
analyzed have issues that might represent an obstacle to analysis, the proposers must
demonstrate clearly and satisfactorily how such potential difficulties will be overcome.
3.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Refer to Section 4 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, for a
detailed list of the data and astromaterials resources, and facilities available to
proposers to this program element, and how to use them. If their use is anticipated, this
should be discussed and justified in the submitted proposals (especially note the
provision for such discussion in the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment).
Also note that, per the directions in Section 4.3 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research
Program Overview, for any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must
state which team member has access or provide a letter of resource support from the
facility or resource confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the
proposed period.
3.3 Data Management Plans
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(DMP see C.1, Section 3.7), and since samples are an important component of
Exobiology Research, please discuss both data and sample management as part of the
Data Management Plan.

C.5-5
3.4 Geologic Maps
Proposers who plan investigations involving geologic mapping should consult C.1,
Section 3.9, for guidance on submission and requirements for publication of U.S.
Geological Survey maps. The scientific goal of such a geologic map product should be
clearly explained and justified.
3.5 Fieldwork
As mentioned in Section 3.15 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, proposals that involve fieldwork must include a response to the NSPIRES
cover page question describing how they will mitigate the impact on the environment
etc.
4. Proposal Submission Process
Proposals to this program element (among others in Appendix C) may be submitted at
any time without any preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1
proposal. See Section 1.1 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview
and https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD. The NSPIRES page for this program
element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that is simply the end date for the current
ROSES, after which proposals may be submitted to the program element with the same
name in the next ROSES. Programs such as this one with No Due Date (NoDD) will
review proposals throughout the year with a regular cadence. For more information
regarding NoDD programs, please refer to the NoDD informational PDF posted under
other documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of
these rules is sufficient grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for
~$3.5M
first year of new awards
Expected number of new
~20-25
awards
Maximum duration of awards 4 years; shorter term proposals (1-3 years) are
typical; fourth year must be explicitly and
scientifically justified.
Neither Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program.
Due date for proposals Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 pm Eastern time on March 29, 2023.
Planning date for start of
6 months after the proposal submission date.
investigation
Page limit for the central 15 pp; see Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and the NASA
Science/Technical/Management Guidebook for Proposers.
section of proposal

C.5-6
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program element
This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, Table 1, and Section IV of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-EXO
Lindsay Hays
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 818-356-3685
Email: lindsay.hays@nasa.gov
Caucus email: HQ-EXO@mail.nasa.gov
C.5-7
C.6 SOLAR SYSTEM OBSERVATIONS
NOTICE: November 2, 2022. David J. Smith has been added as the POC
for this program element. New text is in bold.
This program element now accepts proposals seeking analysis of
archival data resulting from Earth-based observations of planetary
bodies in our solar system.
This program element does not have a proposal due date. Proposals
may be submitted at any time, pending certain eligibility timing issues
related to resubmissions and duplicate proposal avoidance, see
Section 4, below.
1. Scope of Program
Solar System Observations (SSO) supports primarily Earth-based observations,
including ground-, airborne- and space-based astronomical observations, of bodies in
our solar system. Starting in ROSES-2022, SSO also accepts proposals seeking
analysis of archival data acquired with Earth-based observatories. This program seeks
to understand the physical, chemical, and dynamical processes that shape the
atmospheres, exospheres, surfaces, interiors, and motions of solar system objects.
Proposals are solicited for new observations over the entire range of wavelengths, from
X-ray to radio, that contribute to the understanding of the nature and evolution of the
solar system and its individual constituents.
• Proposals must indicate how their proposed objectives advance scientific
knowledge and the NASA Planetary Science strategic objectives. Those
objectives are discussed in more detail in the NASA Science Plan.
• Proposals must include detailed observing plans and scientific analysis,
mitigation strategies, data management, and publication plans for the proposed
observations.
• New observations that enhance, complement, or otherwise expand on the
science of NASA flight missions are especially encouraged. These proposals
must justify how their scientific objectives complement those of the mission.
• Proposals may include observations that utilize any currently operating facility,
public or private, including those supported by NASA. All proposed observations
must be scientifically and budgetarily justified, including the use of facilities that
are not open-access and require fees, as well as facilities that provide a funded
observer program.
• Full PI-led suborbital missions involving balloons, sounding rockets, or aircraft
are not being solicited until further notice. Hosted payloads on already-funded
suborbital platforms will be considered.
• Proposals that primarily use data from missions with active Guest Observer or
Guest Investigator programs or offer funding to do archival research (e.g., the
Hubble Space Telescope) are not permitted.
Investigations involving near-Earth objects (NEOs) should be proposed to C.21 the
Yearly Opportunities for Research in Planetary Defense (YORPD) program element.

C.6-1
2. Programmatic Considerations
2.1 Requests for the Purchase of Instrumentation
Proposals may include requests for the purchase or upgrade of instrumentation needed
to perform the work. Refer to Section 3.11 of C.1, for instructions on how to propose
instrumentation costing more than $50,000.
2.2 Exclusions
Proposals to this program element must include a science investigation relevant to
NASA Planetary Science strategic objectives. Proposals to produce a higher-order data
product that enables or enhances future scientific investigations, but do not include a
science investigation, may be responsive to C.4 the Planetary Data Archiving and
Restoration (PDAR) program.
For further details and exceptions relevant to this program, please refer to the current
edition of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and C.1, The Planetary Science
Research Program Overview.
2.3 Evaluation Criteria
Proposals submitted to this program element will be evaluated using criteria defined in
Appendix D of the guidebook for proposers and as described in the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation, with the following modifications:
• The first bullet of the definition of Merit from the guidebook "The scientific quality of
the proposed project…" will be designated "Scientific" Merit and given its own grade
separate from the rest of merit which will be designated "Technical" Merit.
• The "Technical" Merit will include: 1) whether the proposed work plan would provide
the planned observations 2) whether the data are likely to be able to answer the
science question posed, and 3) the appropriateness of the Data Management Plan.
3. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
3.1 Limits on Use of Mission Data
The standard rule for use of existing mission data has been that unless otherwise
specified, spacecraft mission data to be used in proposed work must be available in the
Planetary Data System (PDS), or an equivalent, publicly accessible, archive, at least 30
days prior to the full proposal due date. For NoDD programs such as this one (see
Section 4 below), the 30-day rule applies to the submission date of the proposal rather
than the due date. If the data to be analyzed have issues that might represent an
obstacle to analysis, the proposers must demonstrate clearly and satisfactorily how
such potential difficulties will be overcome.
3.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Please refer to ROSES program element C.1, Section 4, for a detailed list of the data
and astromaterials resources, and facilities available to proposers to this program
element, and how to use them. If their use is anticipated, this should be discussed and
justified in the submitted proposals (especially note the provision for such discussion in
the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment). Also note that, per the directions
in Section 4.3 of C.1, for any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must

C.6-2
state which team member has access or provide a letter of resource support from the
facility or resource confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the
proposed period.
3.3 Geologic Maps
Proposers who plan investigations involving geologic mapping should consult Section
3.9 of program element C.1 for guidance on submission and requirements for
publication of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps. The scientific goal of such a
geologic map product should be clearly explained and justified.
4. Proposal Submission Process
Proposals to this program element (among others in Appendix C) may be submitted at
any time without any preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1
proposal. See Section 1.1 of C.1 of the Planetary Science Research Program Overview
and https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD. The NSPIRES page for this program
element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that is simply the end date for the current
ROSES, after which proposals may be submitted to the program element with the same
name in the next ROSES. Programs such as this one with No Due Date (NoDD) will
review proposals throughout the year with a cadence that will depend on the rate at
which proposals are submitted. For more information regarding NoDD programs,
please refer to the NoDD informational PDF posted under other documents on the
NSPIRES page for this program element.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of
these rules is sufficient grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first
~$1M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
~8-10
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards Typical awards are 3 years. Up to 4 years
permitted but must be convincingly justified in the
proposal.
Neither Notices of Intent or Step-1 proposals are requested for this program element.
Due date for proposals Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 pm Eastern time on March 29, 2023.
Planning date for start of
~10 months after the proposal submission date.
investigation
Page limit for the central
15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary
Science/Technical/Management
of Solicitation.
section of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that demonstrate relevance to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.

C.6-3
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program:
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
Program Overview, and Section IV and Table 1
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-SSO
David J. Smith [Updated November 2, 2022]
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Phone: 650-279-0227
Email: sso@mail.nasa.gov
C.6-4
C.7 NEW FRONTIERS DATA ANALYSIS PROGRAM
NOTICE: An NSPIRES bug prevented submission of NOIs and Step-1
proposals to certain programs including this one from 8/13/-8/18.
Accordingly, the Step-1 proposal due date for this program has been
delayed by six days. Step-1 proposals are now due September 7, 2022.
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-
anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared according
to the guidelines in Section 2.2 and in the associated "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element.
This program element continues to solicit proposals via a two-step
proposal submission process described in Section 2 of C.1 The
Planetary Science Division Research Program Overview.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Programmatic Overview
The objective of the New Frontiers Data Analysis Program (NFDAP) is to enhance the
scientific return from New Frontiers missions by broadening scientific participation in the
analysis and interpretation of data returned by these missions. NFDAP also solicits
proposals for the analysis of mission data from the JAXA Hayabusa2 mission, which is
not a New Frontiers mission. Other mission and non-mission data sets may be used to
supplement spacecraft data in a supporting role, but all proposals must require the use
of data from at least one qualifying mission: New Horizons, Juno, OSIRIS-REx, or
Hayabusa2.
For the purposes of this program element, "data" is understood to include both
uncalibrated and calibrated data as well as higher-order data products produced from
the mission data. Mission data used in NFDAP investigations must be available in the
Planetary Data System (PDS; http://pds.nasa.gov), or an equivalent publicly accessible
archive, at least 30 days prior to the Step-2 due date. Spacecraft data that have not
been placed in such archives may not be proposed for use.
Proposals must include data-analysis tasks but may also include non-data-analysis
tasks that are necessary to interpret the data or enhance its use. These tasks may
incorporate theory, modeling, laboratory studies, correlative analyses, and/or other
research. Proposals that include non-data-analysis tasks must incorporate the results of
such tasks in the proposed data analysis tasks. Proposals that include comparative
analysis between missions (e.g., Hayabusa2 vs. OSIRIS-REx) are allowed.
Proposals may make use of Hayabusa2 remote-sensing data but may not include any
laboratory studies of samples returned to Earth by Hayabusa2. Investigators who would
like to propose work involving Hayabusa2 sample analysis should refer to C.16
Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples (LARS) for further information.
Each research proposal must constitute a stand-alone scientific investigation, with
clearly stated lines of inquiry, resulting in peer-reviewed publications.

C.7-1
 1.1.1 Mission Team Member Requirements
Members and former members of mission instrument teams must demonstrate that their
proposed investigation will use only publicly available data that meet the 30-days-prior-
to-submission rule (above). Proposals including current mission team members must
demonstrate how the proposed research does not overlap work already funded by their
mission team. This information is to be included in the "Expertise and Resources – Not
Anonymized" document. This requirement applies to all members of the proposal team.
1.2 Data Products
Proposals must demonstrate that all data, including higher-order data products, that
would result from the research will be made publicly available, following the guidelines
described in Section 3.7 of C.1, Planetary Science Overview ("Data Management Plans
and Archiving"). New data products, including maps, improved calibrations, etc., must
be submitted to the PDS, the USGS, or another appropriate archive, by the end of the
funded research period. Proposed data products for delivery to the PDS must be clearly
described, appropriate time and effort for delivery and ingestion must be budgeted, and
the proposal must include a letter from the manager of the appropriate PDS data node.
Such letters should be included in the “Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized”
document. For additional information, refer to the PDS Proposer's Archiving guide at
https://pds.nasa.gov/home/proposers/proposing-programs.shtml.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 Exclusions
Proposals to produce a higher-order data product that enhances the science return from
one or more missions, but without a larger science investigation, should be submitted to
the Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration (PDAR) Program, C.4.
2.2 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which proposers are unaware of the identity of the reviewers and the
reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams during the scientific
evaluation of the proposal. The objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to minimize
bias in the evaluation of the merit of a proposal.
Proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element
that explains how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and 2) proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
identifying information.
Review panels will be instructed to evaluate the intrinsic merit of anonymized proposals,
without taking into account the proposing team’s qualifications and capabilities. After the
C.7-2
scientific evaluation has been finalized for all proposals, panelists will be provided with
the "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents for proposals that scored
in the selectable range. The panel will then assess the qualifications and capabilities of
the team for these proposals and provide comments to NASA.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.

C.7-3
 Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.
3. Data, Facilities, and Archiving
3.1 Use of Mission Data
Proposals to this program element must follow the rules for use of mission data given in
C.1, Section 3.5.
• Mission information can be accessed via the websites.
o Juno: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/main/index.html
o New Horizons:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html
o OSIRIS-REx: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/osiris-rex/index.html
o Hayabusa2: https://www.hayabusa2.jaxa.jp/en
• Mission data information can be accessed via the PDS and mission data archives.
o Juno: https://pds-
atmospheres.nmsu.edu/data_and_services/atmospheres_data/JUNO/juno.html
o New Horizons: http://pds-
smallbodies.astro.umd.edu/data_sb/missions/newhorizons/index.shtml
o OSIRIS-REx: https://pds-
smallbodies.astro.umd.edu/data_sb/missions/orex/index.shtml
o Hayabusa2: https://darts.isas.jaxa.jp/planet/project/hayabusa2 and https://pds-
smallbodies.astro.umd.edu/data_sb/missions/hayabusa2/index.shtml
3.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Proposers are advised to read Section 4 of C.1 for information on facilities and data
sources that are available to supported investigators. If their use is anticipated, this
should be discussed and justified in the submitted proposals (especially note the
provision for such discussion in the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment).
As mentioned in Section 4.3 of C.1, for any facility required for the proposed effort, the
proposal must state which team member has access to it, or provide a letter of resource
support from the facility or resource confirming that it is available for the proposed use,
during the proposed period. The not-anonymized information is to be placed in the
separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized" document.

C.7-4
3.3 Data Archiving and Map Publication
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(see C.1, Section 3.7).
Proposers who plan investigations involving the creation of a geologic map should
consult C.1 for guidance on submission and requirements for publication of U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) maps. The scientific goal of such a geologic map product
should be clearly explained and justified.
4. The Two-Step Submission Process
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process described in C.1,
Section 2. Step-1 proposals are mandatory and must be submitted by the proposing
organization.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in C.1 and Section
IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of these rules is sufficient
grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first year
~ $2.5 M/Year
of new awards
Number of new awards pending
~ 15-20 total
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of investigation ~6 months after the Step-2 proposal due
date.
Page limit for the central Science- 15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Planetary
Science questions, and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
this solicitation Solicitation.
General requirements for content of See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
proposals Program Overview, and Section IV and
Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
Detailed instructions for the submission See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
of proposals 4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation.

C.7-5
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposals
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is permitted
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-NFDAP
Henry Throop
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: HQ-NFDAP@mail.nasa.gov
C.7-6
C.8 LUNAR DATA ANALYSIS PROGRAM
NOTICE: October 18, 2022. In Section 5 the points of contact have
been updated, and the programmatic LDAP email address (HQ-
LDAP@mail.nasa.gov) has been added. Links were updated in Section
1.3. New text is in bold and deleted text is struck through.
Both Step-1 and Step-2 proposals submitted to this program will be
evaluated using a dual-anonymous review process, so both Step-1
and Step-2 proposals must be anonymous. See the guidelines in
Section 2.2 and in the associated "Guidelines for Anonymous
Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES
page for this program element.
This program element continues to solicit proposals via a two-step
proposal submission process described in Section 2 of C.1 The
Planetary Science Division Research Program Overview.
1. Scope of Program
The Lunar Data Analysis Program (LDAP) funds research on the analysis of data from
missions for lunar science investigations. The overall objectives of LDAP are to:
enhance the scientific return of lunar missions conducted by NASA or other space
agencies; broaden scientific participation in the analysis of lunar mission data sets; and
fund high-priority areas of research, such as those that support planning for future lunar
missions (e.g., see Section 1.3).
1.1 Sources of Mission Data
LDAP supports lunar science investigations that use publicly available (released) lunar
data from at least one mission. Data from Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS)
deliveries will be eligible, once those data are publicly available.
Additional information about NASA and other lunar missions can be found at NASA’s
National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) at:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planets/moonpage.html.
Lunar mission data used in LDAP investigations must be available in the Planetary Data
System (PDS; http://pds.nasa.gov), or an equivalent publicly accessible archive, at least
30 days prior to the Step-2 due date for LDAP proposals. Spacecraft data that have not
been placed in such archives may not be proposed for use in LDAP investigations.
(Once a proposal has been awarded, investigators are free to augment the proposed
data set under analysis with newer data in the PDS, or an equivalent publicly available
archive.)
In all cases, it is the responsibility of the LDAP investigator to acquire any necessary
data. Investigators are encouraged to contact the archive for assistance in identifying
specifics of available datasets. Proposers must demonstrate in their proposal that the
necessary data are available. In addition, the obligation is on the proposer to clearly
demonstrate that any potential difficulties, which might represent an obstacle to
analysis, can be overcome.

C.8-1
 1.1.1 Mission Team Member Requirements
Members of current mission or instrument teams who propose to LDAP must clearly
demonstrate that their proposed investigation will use only released and publicly
available data. Such team members must scrupulously comply with the 30-days-prior-
to-submission rule (above). Additionally, proposals from current flight team members
must rigorously demonstrate how the proposed LDAP research does not overlap – and
is not redundant with – data analysis duties/responsibilities already funded by their
respective mission. This information should be included in the "Expertise and
Resources – Not Anonymized" document. This requirement applies to all members of
the proposal team.
1.2 Investigation Types
Proposals to LDAP must include a lunar science investigation. Proposals with the
principal objective of producing a higher-order data product that enables or enhances
future scientific investigations, but do not include a science investigation, are not
responsive to this program element.
Studies may include, but are not limited to:
• Investigations centered on addressing new scientific questions;
• Novel approaches to longstanding scientific questions; or
• Scientific investigations to support current/future lunar exploration.
All proposed projects must include either:
• Analysis of lunar data from at least one mission; or
• Non-data analysis tasks that either:
o Require the use of lunar mission data; or
o Significantly enhance the use, or facilitate the interpretation, of data from a
lunar mission.
LDAP may support new ground-based observations of the Moon or new lunar sample
analyses, provided that these tasks are essential to the proposed scientific investigation
and are conducted to enhance the analysis of data from at least one lunar mission.
1.3 Lunar Science Research Priorities [Updated October 18, 2022]
A description of science research priorities for lunar exploration can be found in the
following documents published by the Space Studies Board of the National Research
Council:
• The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon (2007):
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11954; and
• Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013–2022 (2011):
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13117
• Oceans, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and
Astrobiology 2023–2032: https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-
work/planetary-science-and-astrobiology-decadal-survey-2023-
2032#sectionPublications

C.8-2
Other recent descriptions of priorities can be found in:
• The Lunar Exploration Analysis Group Special Action Team Report Advancing
Science of the Moon (2018): https://www.lpi.usra.edu/leag/reports/ASM-SAT-
Report-final.pdf;
• The Artemis III Science Definition Team (2020):
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/artemis-iii-science-definition-
report-12042020c.pdf; and
• The Lunar Critical Data Products Special Action Team Report
2. Proposal Preparation and Submission
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in the 2022 version
of C.1 The Planetary Science Research Program Overview and Section IV(b)ii of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Violation of these rules is sufficient grounds for a
proposal to be rejected.
2.1 The Two-Step Submission Process
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process described in
program element C.1, Section 2. Proposers are reminded that Step-1 proposals are
mandatory and must be submitted by the proposing organization.
Both Step-1 and Step-2 proposals must be written in an anonymized format (see
Section 2.2 below as well as the accompanying "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document).
2.2 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Both Step-1 and Step-2 proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a
dual-anonymous peer review process, in which, not only are proposers unaware of the
identity of the members on the review panel, but the reviewers do not have explicit
knowledge of the proposal teams during the evaluation of the proposal. The overarching
objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the
evaluation of the merit of a proposal.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for
this program element that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-
anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and 2) proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources – Not
Anonymized" document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
identifying information.
To meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be instructed
to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit, without taking into
account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after the
C.8-3
evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the "Expertise
and Resources – Not Anonymized" documents only for a subset of proposals (typically
the top third, according to the distribution of assigned grades and the projected
selection rates). The panel will use the non-anonymized documents to assess if the
qualifications and capabilities of the team are sufficient to execute the proposed
investigation.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.

C.8-4
 Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.
3. Programmatic Information
3.1 Program-Specific Evaluation Criteria
As part of the evaluation of Intrinsic Merit, the following evaluation factors will be taken into
account (not to the exclusion of other standard factors described in the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers):
a. the extent to which data sets to be used in the proposed work are clearly and
specifically identified in the proposal;
b. the extent to which the proposal demonstrates clearly that the public data are of
sufficient quantity and quality to achieve the project’s science goals;
c. the extent to which the proposal demonstrates familiarity with the data and an
understanding of the work required to refine the data for the purposes of the analysis;
d. the extent to which the proposal demonstrates that any known issues with the data,
presenting obstacles to analysis, will be overcome; and
e. the extent to which the proposed investigation supports NASA’s future lunar exploration
plans.
3.2 Data Management and Archiving
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(DMP; see program element C.1, Section 3.7). This must be placed in a special section,
not to exceed two pages in length, immediately following the References and Citations
section for the Scientific/Technical/Management portion of the proposal.
Data products produced by funded LDAP investigations must be made publicly
available, following the guidelines described in Section 3.7 of C.1 Planetary Science
Overview ("Data Management Plans and Archiving"). Proposed data products for
delivery to the PDS must be clearly described, appropriate time and effort for delivery
and ingestion must be budgeted, and the proposal must include a letter from the
manager of the appropriate PDS data node. Such letters are to be included in the
"Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized" document. For additional information,
refer to the PDS Proposer's Archiving guide at
https://pds.nasa.gov/home/proposers/proposing-programs.shtml. Data products,
including maps, improved calibrations, etc., must be submitted to the PDS or the U.S.

C.8-5
Geological Survey (USGS), as appropriate, by the end of the funded research period,
unless the investigator explicitly makes a case in the proposal for a later date.
3.3 Progress Reports
An Annual Progress Report will be due no later than 60 days in advance of the
anniversary date of the award. Awards to NASA Centers, including the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL), always have an anniversary date of the start of the Federal fiscal
year, October 1.
3.4 Duration of Awards
Typical proposals to this program seek three years of funding or fewer. Please refer to
program element C.1, Section 3.4, for instructions on submitting requests for more than
three years. Proposals for less than three years of funding are highly encouraged for
projects that can be completed on shorter timescales.
4. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
4.1 Limits on Use of Mission Data
Proposals to this program element must follow the rules for use of mission data given in
program element C.1, Section 3.5 and further clarified in Section 1.1 above.
4.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Proposers are advised to read C.1 (Section 4), The Planetary Science Division
Research Program Overview, for information on facilities and data sources that are
available to supported investigators. If their use is anticipated, this should be discussed
and justified in the submitted proposals (especially note the provision for such
discussion in the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment). Also note that, per
the directions in Section 4.3 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview,
for any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must state which team
member has access to it, or provide a letter of resource support from the facility or
resource confirming that it is available for the proposed use, during the proposed period.
The not-anonymized information is to be placed in the separate "Expertise and
Resources – Not Anonymized" document.
4.3 Geologic Maps
Proposers who plan investigations involving geologic mapping should consult program
element C.1. Section 3.9, for guidance on submission and requirements for publication
of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps. The scientific goal of such a geologic map
product should be clearly explained and justified in the proposal.
5. Summary of Key Information [POC updates October 18, 2022]
Expected program budget for
~$1.2M
first year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
~8
adequate proposals of merit

C.8-6
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Step-1 proposals
Due date for Step-2 proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this Shoshana Weider (Caucus lead)
program, both of whom share
this email address:
HQ-LDAP@mail.nasa.gov
Four years; shorter-term proposals (one to three
years) are typical; fourth year must be explicitly
and scientifically justified.
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
6 months after the Step-2 proposal due date
15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022
This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions, and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of ROSES-
2022.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-LDAP
Telephone: (202) 358-1667
Kathleen Vander Kaaden
Telephone: (202) 779-3088
C.8-7
C.9 U MARS DATA ANALYSIS
NOTICE: Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using
a dual-anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared
according to the guidelines in Section 4.2 and in the associated
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other
Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
This program element continues to solicit proposals via a two-step
proposal submission process described in Section 2 of C.1 The
Planetary Science Division Research Program Overview.
Proposals to this program element are subject to a relevance
requirement in addition to and that supersedes those detailed in the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation, see Section 2.2 of this program
element. Proposals that do not fulfill this requirement may be returned
without review.
1. U Scope of Program
The objective of the Mars Data Analysis Program (MDAP) is to enhance the scientific
return from missions to Mars conducted by NASA and other space agencies. These
include, but are not limited to, the following missions: Mars Pathfinder (MPF), Mars
Global Surveyor (MGS), Mars Odyssey (MO), Mars Exploration Rovers (MER), Mars
Express (MEX), Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), Phoenix (PHX), Mars Science
Laboratory (MSL), Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN ( MAVEN ), ExoMars Trace
41T 15T41T 15T41T

Gas Orbiter (TGO), InSight, and Mars 2020 (the Perseverance rover and Ingenuity
helicopter) . Any proposal may incorporate the investigation of data from more than one
41T

mission. Additional information about these missions, as well as references containing

preliminary science results, can be found on the Mars Exploration Program (MEP)
homepage at: http://mars.nasa.gov .
30TU U30T

MDAP broadens scientific participation in the analysis of mission data sets and funds
high-priority areas of research that support planning for future Mars missions.
Investigations that use data derived from other sources (e.g., ground-based radar,
Hubble) will also be considered, but are lower priority. MDAP supports scientific
investigations of Mars using publicly available (released) data.
Investigations submitted to this program must demonstrate how the research to be
undertaken will directly improve our understanding of open science questions at Mars
relevant to current hypotheses. Tasks responsive to this call include 1) data analysis
tasks, 2) non-data-analysis tasks that are necessary to analyze or interpret the data,
and 3) non-data-analysis tasks that significantly enhance the use or facilitate the
interpretation of mission data. These tasks may incorporate theory, modeling, laboratory
studies, correlative analyses, and/or other research, as long as the primary focus and
majority of the work are data analysis. All proposals must include a complete science
investigation. Proposals that include non-data-analysis tasks to enhance the use or
facilitate the interpretation of mission data must incorporate the results of such tasks in
the analysis or interpretation of mission data and such tasks must be a minor
component to be responsive to this call. MDAP does not support field or analog studies,

C.9-1
comparative planetology studies, or the acquisition of new astronomical observations or
collection of new data from spacecraft at Mars.
An investigator may also propose in the following areas of Mars research that support
planning for future Mars missions, provided that the investigation makes use of publicly-
available Mars mission data and contains a complete scientific investigation:
• Improved atmospheric models that further the understanding and forecasting of
Mars atmospheric conditions that affect the orbital trajectories of spacecraft and/or
the safe passage of spacecraft through the atmosphere, including aerobraking and
aerocapture.
• Characterization of potential landing sites for future Mars exploration missions (e.g.,
geomorphology, distribution and size of rocks, pits, sand dunes, regional and local
slopes, surface composition, and texture variability).
• Analysis and comparison of Mars orbital and surface data to increase the predictive
accuracy of surface characteristics of Mars from orbit.
Members of active mission or instrument teams who wish to apply to MDAP must
clearly demonstrate that their proposed investigation will use only released and publicly
available data. Flight team members must scrupulously comply with the 30-days-prior-
to-due date rule (See Section 3.1 below). If data products derived from raw data are
necessary to address the scientific questions as posed in the proposal, the data
products must be available in an archive or publication. If the data products would be
generated from raw data during the course of the proposed work, that is acceptable, but
the methods used to create them (including software) must be publicly available.
Additionally, team members must clearly demonstrate how the proposed MDAP
research does not overlap and is not redundant with activities already funded by their
respective missions. This information should be included in the “Expertise and
Resources – Not Anonymized” document. This requirement applies to all members of
the proposal team.
For more information about the type of research supported by the MDAP, please refer
to the abstracts of currently funded investigations that are available onlin e at:
30T 30T

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ .
30T 30T

2. Programmatic Information
2.1 Program Exclusions
Investigators proposing studies that do not focus on the tasks listed in Section 1 are
advised that such studies are not appropriate for MDAP, but may be suitable for
submission to the other programs in Planetary Science.
Proposals to conduct comparative studies between Mars and other Solar System
objects (including Earth) are not responsive to this call and are directed to the most
appropriate program in Planetary Science or the Science Mission Directorate.
Proposals whose principal objective is the production of data products (e.g.,
cartographic products, such as geologic, topographic, or mineral maps, and/or
calibration data) that are not part of a larger science investigation are directed to
program element C.4 Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration (PDAR).

C.9-2
MDAP also does not support:
• Proposals for organizing and/or hosting scientific meetings (which should be
submitted to Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences, F.2);
• Proposals for detector, instrumentation, or technology development; or
• Investigations whose primary emphasis is fundamental theory, the development
of numerical models, or laboratory measurements (unless there is a direct and
explicitly presented connection to and use of Mars mission data; in these cases,
the primary focus of the proposed work must be data analysis and not simply
using data for model or measurement validation).
2.2 Relevance Statement Requirement
Step-2 Proposals to this program element must specifically address the relevance of the
proposed work to this program element. This must be placed in a special section, not to
exceed one page in length, immediately following the Data Management Plan. This
section is outside of the 15-page Scientific/Technical/Management Section. This
requirement supersedes the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation, and the omission of this section is sufficient reason for a proposal to be
returned without review.
The relevance discussion must explicitly refer to this program element and the section
to which the proposal is responsive. If the proposed work is close in scope to research
covered by any other program element, this discussion must also justify why it is more
relevant to this program element than that other program element. This discussion may
not be used to address the proposal’s intrinsic merit, budget justification, or any other
factor that remains in the 15-page main body, or any other section, of the proposal. This
section must be anonymized.
2.3 Data Management Plans
Program element C.1, Section 3.7, discusses the requirements for DMPs in proposals
to this program element. Please note that DMPs are mandatory for this program
element and must be placed in a special section not to exceed two pages in length,
immediately following the References and Citations section of the
Scientific/Technical/Management portion of the proposal.
2.4 Duration and Size of Awards
NASA anticipates that most proposals will seek three years of funding. Proposals for
less than three years are encouraged for projects that can be completed on shorter
timescales. In rare cases, funding for a proposed fourth year may be provided, if the
need for the longer duration is sufficiently well justified. The appropriateness of the
proposed funding period will be reviewed, and adjustments may be requested.
Programmatic balance may limit the opportunities for funding in some areas. Proposers
are encouraged to request the resources they actually need to conduct the research
proposed.
2.5 Development of instruments
This solicitation does not request proposals for the development of advanced instrument
concepts and technologies as precursors to flight instruments. Such proposals may be

C.9-3
submitted to program element C.12 Planetary Instrument Concepts for the
Advancement of Solar System Observations (PICASSO), for technology readiness
levels (TRLs) 1-3 or program element C.13 Maturation of Instruments for Solar System
Exploration (MatISSE) for TRLs 4-6.
3. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
3.1 Limits on Use of Mission Data
For proposals that contain mission data analysis, planetary spacecraft mission data to
be used in proposed investigations must be available in the Planetary Data System
(PDS) or equivalent publicly accessible archive at least 30 days prior to the Step-2
proposal due date. Spacecraft data that have not been placed in the public domain may
not be proposed for use in MDAP investigations. (Once a proposal has been awarded,
investigators are free to augment the proposed dataset under analysis with data
deposited in the PDS (or an equivalent publicly available archive) subsequent to 30
days prior to the MDAP Step-2 due date.) Spacecraft data that have not been obtained
yet (i.e., future mission data) or those that have not been accepted for distribution in
approved archives are not eligible for use in investigations. Note: For this program
element, existing derived data products (e.g., data retrievals that required manipulation
of the original spacecraft data set), if necessary to address the scientific questions, must
also be publicly available in the literature or in a publicly accessible archive at least 30
days prior to the Step-2 due date for proposals (see also Section 1).
Regardless of the archive(s) used, if the data to be analyzed have issues that might
represent an obstacle to analysis, the proposers must demonstrate clearly and
satisfactorily how such potential difficulties will be overcome. Investigators funded by
spacecraft missions who wish to apply must demonstrate clearly how the proposed
research does not overlap and is not redundant with data analysis, duties, or
responsibilities already funded by their respective mission(s). This information should be
included in the "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized" document. This
requirement applies to all members of the proposal team. Please see C.1 The Planetary
Science Division Research Program Overview, for more information.
3.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Refer to ROSES program element C.1, Section 4, for a detailed list of the data and
astromaterials resources, and facilities available to proposers to this program element,
and how to use them. If their use is anticipated, this should be discussed and justified in
the submitted proposal (especially note the provision for such discussion in the proposal
section entitled Facilities and Equipment). Also note that, per the directions in Section
4.3 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, for any facility required
for the proposed effort, the proposal must state which team member has access to it, or
provide a letter of resource support from the facility or resource confirming that it is
available for the proposed use, during the proposed period. The not-anonymized
information is to be placed in the separate " Expertise and Resources – Not
34T 34T

Anonymized " document.

34T 34T

C.9-4
Documents that describe the research priorities for Mars exploration include:
• Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) reports
( http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/) including Mars Scientific Goals, Objectives,
30T 30 T

Investigations, and Priorities [2010 and subsequent updates] ; 30T

• The recommendations of the Committee on the Planetary Science Decadal Survey

of the National Research Council as described in the Space Studies Board report,
Visions and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 [2011],
available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13117; and
30T

• An Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars [2007], by the Space Studies
30T 30T

Board of the National Research Council

(http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11937).
30T

Additional information is available on the MEP web site at: http://mars.nasa.gov/ .

30T 30T

3.3 Geologic Maps

Proposers who plan investigations involving geologic mapping should consult program
element C.1, Section 3.9, for guidance on submission and requirements for publication
of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps.
3.4 Digital Terrain Models
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Astrogeology Planetary Photogrammetry Lab
offers a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) and orthorectified image production service to the
scientific community to supply NASA-selected investigators with high-quality HiRISE
DTMs and orthorectified HiRISE images. This effort replaces the “Photogrammetry
Guest Facility” formerly operated by the USGS Astrogeology Science Center. This
service is funded directly by NASA and is offered at no charge to NASA-selected
investigations through the ROSES program.
Information on this service can be found at: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/astrogeology-
30T

science-center/science/usgs-astrogeology-planetary-photogrammetry-lab?qt-
science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects 30T

4. Proposal Preparation and Submission

Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of
these rules is sufficient grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
4.1 The Two-Step Submission Process
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process described in
program element C.1, Section 2. Proposers are reminded that Step-1 proposals are
mandatory and must be submitted by the proposing organization.
4.2 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members
on the review panel, but the reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal
teams during the evaluation of the proposal. The overarching objective of dual-

C.9-5
anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit of a
proposal.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so p roposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines
34T

for Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page
for this program element that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual- 34T

anonymous peer review . 3 4T

The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as t he NSPIRES 34T 34T

"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and 2) proposers must upload a separate " Expertise and Resources - Not
34T 34T

Anonymized " document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
34T 34T

identifying information.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit, without
taking into account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after
the evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the "Expertise
and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents only for a subset of proposals (typically
the top third, according to the distribution of assigned grades and the projected
selection rates). The panel will use the non-anonymized documents to assess whether
the qualifications and capabilities of the team are sufficient to execute the proposed
investigation.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
C.9-6
 document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of 0T 0T

facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in

an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for
~ $4.5M
first year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
~ 20-25
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 4 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of
9 months after proposal due date.
investigation
Page limit for the central
15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Science/Technical/Management
Solicitation.
section of proposal

C.9-7
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of Step- http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
1 and Step-2 proposals via
NSPIRES
Web site for submission of Step- http://grants.gov (help desk available at
1 and Step-2 proposals via
Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this Mitch Schulte
program both of whom share the
following postal address:
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions, and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA. See Section 2.2.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4 of
30T 30T
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is permitted.
30T 30T
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
30T 30T
30T 30T
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
30T 30T
NNH22ZDA001N-MDAP
Telephone: (202) 358-2127
Email: mitchell.d.schulte@nasa.gov
30T
Adrian Brown
30T
Email: adrian.j.brown@nasa.gov
30T 30T
C.9-8
C.10 CASSINI DATA ANALYSIS PROGRAM
U

NOTICE: Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using

a dual-anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared
according to the guidelines in Section 4.2 and in the associated
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other
Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
This program element continues to solicit proposals via a two-step
proposal submission process described in Section 2 of C.1 The
Planetary Science Division Research Program Overview.
1. U Scope of Program
1.1 Programmatic Overview
U

The objective of the Cassini Data Analysis Program (CDAP) is to enhance the scientific
return of the Cassini mission by broadening the scientific participation in the analysis
and interpretation of data returned by this mission. Other mission and non-mission data
sets may be used with these data, but all proposals must require the use of data from
the Cassini mission.
For the purposes of this solicitation, "data" is understood to include both uncalibrated
and calibrated data as well as higher-order data products produced from the mission
data. Mission data used in CDAP investigations must be available in the Planetary Data
System (PDS; http://pds.nasa.gov ), or an equivalent publicly accessible archive, at
28TU U28T

least 30 days prior to the Step-2 due date. Spacecraft data that have not been placed in
such archives may not be proposed for use.
Proposals must include data-analysis tasks, but may also include non-data-analysis
tasks that are necessary to interpret the data or enhance its use. These tasks may
incorporate theory, modeling, laboratory studies, correlative analyses, and/or other
research. Proposals that include non-data-analysis tasks must incorporate the results of
such tasks in the proposed data analysis tasks.
Each research proposal must constitute a stand-alone scientific investigation, with
stated lines of inquiry, and result in one or more peer-reviewed publications.
1.2 Data Products
Proposals must demonstrate that all data, including higher-order data products, that
would result from the research will be made publicly available, following the guidelines
described in Section 3.7 of C.1 Planetary Science Overview ("Data Management Plans
and Archiving"). New data products, including maps, improved calibrations, etc., must
be submitted to the PDS, the USGS, or another appropriate archive, by the end of the
funded research period. Proposed data products for delivery to the PDS must be clearly
described, appropriate time and effort for delivery and ingestion must be budgeted, and
the proposal must include a letter from the manager of the appropriate PDS data node.
Such letters should be included in the "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document. For additional information about archiving data, please see
https://pds.nasa.gov/home/proposers/proposing-programs.shtml .
28T 28T

C.10-1
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 Exclusions
Proposals to produce a higher-order data product that enhances the science return from
Cassini, but without a larger science investigation, must be submitted to C.4 the
Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration (PDAR) program.
3. Data, Facilities, and Archiving
3.1 Use of Mission Data
Proposals to this program element must follow the rules for use of mission data given in
C.1, Section 3.5.
• Mission information can be accessed via the NASA website.
o http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/
28T 28T

• Mission data information can be accessed via PDS webpages.

o http://pds-
28T

atmospheres.nmsu.edu/data_and_services/atmospheres_data/Cassini/Cassi
ni.html 28T

o http://pds-rings.seti.org/cassini/
28T

o http://pds-rings.seti.org/cassini/data.html
28T 28T

3.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers

Proposers are advised to read Section 4 of C.1 for information on facilities and data
sources that are available to supported investigators. If their use is anticipated, this
should be discussed and justified in the submitted proposals (especially note the
provision for such discussion in the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment).
As mentioned in Section 4.3 of C.1, for any facility required for the proposed effort, the
proposal must state which team member has access to it, or provide a letter of resource
support from the facility or resource confirming that it is available for the proposed use,
during the proposed period. The not-anonymized information is to be placed in the
separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized" document.
3.3 Data Archiving and Map Publication
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(see C.1, Section 3.7).
Proposers who plan investigations involving the creation of a geologic map should
consult C.1 for guidance on submission and requirements for publication of U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) maps. The scientific goal of such a geologic map product
should be clearly explained and justified.
4. Proposal Preparation and Submission
4.1 The Two-Step Submission Process
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process described in C.1,
Section 2. Step-1 proposals are mandatory and must be submitted by the proposing
organization.

C.10-2
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in C.1 and Section
IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of these rules is sufficient
grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
4.2 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which proposers are unaware of the identity of the reviewers and the
reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams during the evaluation of
the proposal. The objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to minimize bias in the
evaluation of the merit of a proposal.
Proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
32T

document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element
that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-anonymous peer review .
32T 32T

The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as t he NSPIRES 32T 32T

"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and 2) proposers must upload a separate " Expertise and Resources - Not
32T 32T

Anonymized " document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
32T 32T

identifying information.
Review panels will be instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their
scientific merit, without taking into account the proposing team’s qualifications. After the
evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the "Expertise
and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents only for a subset of proposals (typically
the top third, according to the distribution of assigned grades and the projected
selection rates). The panel will use the non-anonymized documents to assess whether
the qualifications and capabilities of the team are sufficient to execute the proposed
investigation.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.

C.10-3
 Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of 0T 0T

facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in

an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for new
~$2M/Year
awards
Number of new awards pending
10-15 total
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA

C.10-4
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General requirements for content of See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of Step-1
and Step-2 proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of Step-1
and Step-2 proposals via
Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program:
~6 months after Step-2 proposal due date.
15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation.
This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions, and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
Program Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4 of
28T 28T
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
28T 28T
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
28T 28T
9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-CDAP
Henry Throop
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: HQ-CDAP@mail.nasa.gov
28T 28T
C.10-5
C.11 DISCOVERY DATA ANALYSIS
NOTICE: An NSPIRES bug prevented submission of NOIs and Step-1
proposals to certain programs including this one from 8/13/-8/18.
Accordingly, the mandatory NOI due date for this program has been
delayed by six days. Mandatory NOI are now due September 6, 2022.
The text on page 6 introducing Table C.11-1 has also been clarified.
August 16, 2022. In Section 8 the main POC for this program has been
changed to Thomas Wagner. New text is in bold. See Section 6.1 of
this program element.
Neither NSPIRES cover page budgets nor detailed budgets are
requested at the time of proposal submission; proposers must merely
identify the project duration and cost category (small, medium, or
large). Please note the $ thresholds have changed, see Section 7.3.
The Data Management Plan is not part of a separate 2-page section
but must be included in the 15-page S/T/M section of the proposal, see
Section 4.3.
Proposals to this Program Element will be evaluated using dual-
anonymous peer review. Proposals must be prepared following the
guidelines in Section 6.2 of this program element and the "Guidelines
for Anonymous Proposals" document.
1. Scope of program
NASA's Discovery Data Analysis Program (DDAP) advances the planetary sciences
through research based on select missions of NASA's Discovery Program, and ESA's
Rosetta and BepiColombo missions. DDAP's objectives are to enhance the scientific
return of these missions by supporting new analyses, approaches, and interpretations of
data and samples.
2. Significant Changes from Recent Years
● Proposals that utilize emerging methods in scientific data analysis are
encouraged, including but not limited to: machine learning, cloud-based
processing, and integration of data with advanced numerical models. Low-cost,
highly experimental proposals in these areas are especially encouraged.
● Open science approaches are encouraged.
● Neither NSPIRES cover page budgets nor detailed budgets are requested at the
time of proposal submission for DDAP; proposers must merely identify the
project duration and cost category: small (<$125K/year), medium ($125-
175K/year), or large ($176-300K/year). The budget cost caps of submitted
proposals need not match those chosen at the time NOIs were submitted.
However, for those with proposals deemed selectable, who are invited to submit
detailed budgets, those budgets may not exceed the budget cost cap category
that was chosen when the proposal was submitted.
● Dual-anonymous peer review processes will be used for evaluation. Reviewers
are not told the identities of the proposers during evaluation, see Section 6.2.

C.11-1
3. Investigations
3.1 Research Goals and Objectives
NASA's Discovery Data Analysis Program (DDAP) solicits proposals to pursue any
research topic that advances the Planetary Science goals articulated in the NASA 2018
Strategic Plan and 2020 Science Mission Directorate Vision for Scientific Excellence
(http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy/) using archived data from the
following missions:
● NEAR
● Stardust
● Stardust-NExT
● Genesis
● Deep Impact
● EPOXI
● MESSENGER
● Dawn
● Kepler/K2 (Solar System targets only)
● Rosetta (Rosetta is not a Discovery mission, but NASA HQ has assigned Rosetta
data analysis to the Discovery program)
● BepiColombo (BepiColombo is not a Discovery mission, but NASA HQ has
assigned data analysis to the Discovery program)
3.2 Specific investigations
Proposers are encouraged to propose any innovative scientific investigations that
enhance the scientific return from the missions listed in Section 3.1, including but not
limited to laboratory studies, theoretical approaches, numerical modeling, correlative
analyses, and any other research methods, as long as the work plan is substantially
based on data from the mission list. NASA also understands that many of these
datasets have been subject to intense focus since collection and it can be challenging to
design compelling new projects based on some of the older missions. While any work
must be convincingly argued, proposers are advised that while hypothesis-driven
research is encouraged, it is not required and both broadly exploratory and highly
focused work can be supported. Projects may include, but are not limited to the
following:
● Investigations centered on new scientific questions;
● Approaches to longstanding scientific questions with new tools;
● Pursuit of very focused scientific questions, such as improving understanding of
localized processes or unresolved data anomalies; or
● Highly exploratory proposals based on fundamentally new approaches.
In terms of highly exploratory proposals, NASA recognizes that some of the data
streams present an exciting opportunity to utilize emerging methods in data analytics,
including but not limited to artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data mining with
applications to analysis, data fusion, and coupling-models-with-observations. The
program welcomes proposals that team computer scientists and planetary scientists. In
addition, NASA recognizes that some of the initial applications of these approaches to

C.11-2
Planetary Science may be exploratory, and a portion of the budget has been reserved
for low-cost, highly experimental proposals of varying duration.
4. Requirements
4.1 Open Science
This program element encourages proposers to implement Open Science (OS)
approaches consistent with the recommendations of the report Open Science by
Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research from the National Academies of
Science, Engineering and Medicine (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25116/open-science-
by-design-realizing-a-vision-for-21st-century). Some key recommendations from the
report that are particularly relevant to DDAP include but are not limited to:
● Developing proposals using Findable-Accessible-Interoperable-Reusable (FAIR)
principles;
● Conducting research using tools compatible with open sharing;
● Preparing data and tools for reproducibility;
● Documenting approaches in electronic research notebooks; and
● Depositing research output in FAIR archives.
SMD recognizes that fully implementing OS approaches will be challenging and entails
additional cost. However, SMD sees great benefit to these approaches for accelerating
Solar System research, and proposers are encouraged to document their workflows to
facilitate sharing of advances and validating results by:
● Utilizing open-source digital notebooks - such as Jupyter Notebook
(http://jupyter.org/) to document and demonstrate workflow;
● Regular uploads to appropriate open code repositories - such as Github
(https://github.com/) of digital notebooks and other codes, either by using these
repositories as continuous, open development environments or by making
separate uploads to these repositories at intervals of no more than six months
during conduct of the investigation; and
● Ensuring critical ancillary datasets are available in ready-to-use subsets and
formats via open archives and/or the relevant PDS archive.
Proposers are encouraged to specifically address each of these approaches and will be
evaluated with regards to their likelihood for success. Archiving of digital notebooks,
code, and ancillary datasets should be discussed in the Data Management Plan.
4.2 Source Data Accessibility
Data used in DDAP investigations must be available in the Planetary Data System
(PDS; https://pds.nasa.gov/) or equivalent publicly accessible archive, at least 30 days
prior to the Step-2 due date for DDAP proposals.
Analysis of scientific data and other observations that are not available in such archives
is not eligible for support in DDAP investigations.
4.3 Data Management Plan
The approach to data management and archiving must be described in a Data
Management Plan (DMP). Information on the content of a DMP may be found in Section
3.7 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview. However, in an
C.11-3
exception to the default, for this program element the DMP must be included in the 15-
page Science/Technical/Management Section of the proposal. The plan will be
evaluated as part of Merit, and must address:
1. Data types, volumes, formats, and standards;
2. Archiving of codes and digital notebooks
3. Selected archives
4. Schedules of delivery and release
5. Proposers are also encouraged to address the Open Sciences approaches
mentioned in Section 4.1.
4.4 Data Products and Release
All data products produced by funded DDAP investigations must be made publicly
available, following the guidelines described in C.1 Planetary Science Overview ("Data
Management Plans and Archiving").
Data products for delivery to the PDS must be clearly described, appropriate time and
effort for delivery and ingestion must be budgeted for in your provided estimate, and the
proposal must include a letter from the manager of the appropriate PDS data node.
Such letters should be included in the "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document. For additional information about archiving data, please see
https://pds.nasa.gov/home/proposers/proposing-programs.shtml. Data products,
including maps, improved calibrations, etc., must be submitted to the PDS or the U.S.
Geological Survey, as appropriate, by the end of the funded research period, unless the
investigator explicitly makes a case in the proposal for a later date.
4.5 Open-Source Software
All software developed under this program element is to be designated and distributed
to the public as open-source software using Apache License 2.0
(https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) or a less restrictive license. Software
developed under this program may be created to operate in conjunction with
commercial or other restricted-use software (such as MATLAB, ENVI, and ArcGIS), but
must be licensed separately from that software.
4.6 Focus on Outcomes from Missions
Proposals must be substantially focused on data from one or more missions listed in
Section 3.1. Work plans must be grounded in outcomes from the missions; modeling
proposals, for example, must be aimed at interpreting mission data or using the data to
develop the model. If the proposal includes data from missions not listed in Section 3.1,
the proposal must demonstrate that the majority of the work is focused on missions
listed in Section 3.1.
5 Program Exclusions
5.1 Proposals to exclusively produce data products
DDAP is a science program, and all proposals must be framed around a scientific
investigation with science outcomes. Consequently, proposals to produce higher order
data products or to reprocess data with enhanced algorithms must include a science

C.11-4
investigation or should be submitted to other ROSES elements such as C.4 the
Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration (PDAR) program.
5.2 Proposals relevant to other DAP program elements
DDAP is intended to have minimal overlap with other ROSES program elements and
DAPs. Consequently, DDAP, does not support work that would be supported under the
following ROSES program elements:
● C.8 LDAP for Lunar missions;
● C.9 MDAP for Mars missions;
● C.10 CDAP for the Cassini missions;
● C.7 NFDAP for missions supported by the New Frontiers program;
● D.2 ADAP for Kepler/K2 observation of objects outside the Solar System;
5.3 Proposals Relevant to Other Research elements
DDAP does not support:
● Analysis of data from past Discovery missions that are not listed in Section 3.1;
above, which should be submitted to the most appropriate research program.
● Proposals for organizing and/or hosting scientific meetings which should be
submitted to F.2, Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences;
● Proposals for detector, instrumentation, or technology development should be
submitted to the relevant technology program; or
● Investigations whose primary emphasis is fundamental theory, numerical model
development, or laboratory measurements unless there is a direct and explicitly
presented connection to the missions listed in Section 3.1.
6. Proposal Preparation and Submission
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1, Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. Violation of these rules is sufficient grounds for a proposal to
be rejected.
6.1 The Notice of Intent Submission Process
This program element uses a mandatory Notice of Intent (NOI) proposal submission
process described in program element C.1, Section 2 to facilitate review planning and
decrease proposal dwell time before selections are made.
6.2 Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members
on the review panel, but the reviewers are not told the identity of the proposal teams or
organizations during the evaluation of the proposal. The overarching objective of dual-
anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit of a
proposal. See also https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for

C.11-5
this program element that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-
anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and 2) proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
identifying information.
Review panels will be instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their
scientific merit, without taking into account the proposing team’s qualifications. After the
evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the "Expertise
and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents only for a subset of proposals (typically
the top third, according to the distribution of assigned grades and the projected
selection rates). The panel will use the non-anonymized documents to assess whether
the qualifications and capabilities of the team are sufficient to execute the proposed
investigation.
A summary of changes to key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below. These are modifications of
standard requirements (see Table 1 of the ROSES-2022) many of which are not changed
for DAPR. [Clarified August 19, 2022]
Table C.11-1 Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Proposal Preparation
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first
page of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Pages 15 pages for the S/T/M, including the Data Management Plan.
One additional page is allotted for the Proposal Summary.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Sketches separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document.
Current and Pending Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Support separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document.
Redacted Budget Detailed budgets are not required for this element (see
and Narrative Section 7.3). The budget justification and any narrative in the
proposal body must be in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion
in the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in
Equipment the separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized

C.11-6
 Facilities and proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
Equipment cont. facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research
in an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions
of facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with
facilities are to be included in the separate "Expertise and
Resources - Not Anonymized" document
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High End Computing Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.

Separate "Expertise Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This

and Resources - Not document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Anonymized" institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the
document work. The document should also discuss any specific
resources that are key to completing the proposed work, as
well as a summary of work effort. Statements of Current and
Pending Support must also be included. Any formal
relationship with the sponsoring agency’s mission shall be
described in this section. Membership in ongoing mission
science teams that may overlap with the proposed research
shall be described in this section. Letters of support, e.g., from
facilities or archives, must be included in this section.

7. Programmatic Information
7.1 Program-Specific Evaluation Criteria
The primary evaluation criteria are given in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
In addition to the definition of Merit given in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers, the evaluation criterion Intrinsic Merit specifically includes the following
factors:
(a) Approach and likelihood of success in meeting the requirements in Sections 4.2
through 4.5
(b) Demonstrated familiarity with the mission data to be used and addressing issues
that might present obstacles to the investigation
(c) Tasks that are not data analysis will be assessed based on the perceived
significance or impact for the analysis of data from the missions listed in Section 3.1.

C.11-7
The evaluation of Relevance will include the extent to which the proposal satisfies the
requirement in Section 4.6.
The evaluation of cost will focus on the personnel effort and the one-page budget
justification regarding the Full Time Equivalent and large expenditures.
7.2 Award Duration
Proposals to this program may request up to three years of funding. Highly exploratory
proposals requesting less than three years of funding are also encouraged.
7.3 Budgets
In lieu of a detailed budget, only a single page budget justification will be needed. No
NSPIRES-based budget will be submitted, and no Total Budget file will be uploaded.
Proposals submitted to this element do not need to include a detailed budget but must
identify the planned duration and cost cap under which the proposal is submitted as
either small (<$125K/year), medium ($125-175K/year), or large ($176-300K/year).
Information sufficient for reviewers to roughly estimate personnel efforts and other major
expenditures should be included in the one-page budget justification.
After review, detailed budgets will be requested for some proposals. Those detailed
budgets may not exceed the budget cost cap category that was chosen when the
proposal was submitted. The NASA program officer will review these budgets in detail
and may request changes in scope based on review outcomes and availability of funds.
7.4 Progress Reports
An Annual Progress Report will be due no later than 60 days in advance of the
anniversary date of the award. Awards to NASA Centers, including the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL), always have an anniversary date of the start of the Federal fiscal
year, October 1.
8. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~$2.0M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~16 of varying size and scope
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years; shorter-term proposals (1-3 years) are
typical
Due date for mandatory NOIs See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of ~Six months after proposal due date.
investigation
Page limit for the central 15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and the
Science/Technical/Management NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
section of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.

C.11-8

General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
Program Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-DDAP
[Updated August 16, 2022]
Thomas Wagner
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: thomas.wagner@nasa.gov
C.11-9
C.12 PLANETARY INSTRUMENT CONCEPTS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOLAR SYSTEM
OBSERVATIONS
NOTICE: September 21, 2022. The Point of Contact (in Section 5) has
been changed to Michael Lienhard. New text is in bold.
This program element does not have a proposal due date. Proposals
may be submitted at any time, pending certain eligibility timing issues
related to resubmissions and duplicate proposal avoidance, see
Section 4, below.
Proposals must include an entry Summary Chart submitted as a
separately uploaded appendix along with the proposal, see Section
2.1 for more details. Progress reports are due Semi-Annually. See
Section 2.4 for more detail.
Data Management Plans are not required for this program element.
1. Scope of Program
The goal of the Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar System
Observations (PICASSO) program is to support the development of spacecraft-based
instrument components and systems that would enhance or enable the scientific return
from future planetary missions that support the Science Mission Directorate’s (SMD)
Planetary Science Division (PSD). Therefore, the proposed instrument component or
system must address specific scientific objectives of likely future planetary science
missions.
The PICASSO program seeks proposals to develop new proof-of-concept instruments
or instrument components, including sampling technologies, that enable new science by
significantly improving instrument measurement capabilities for planetary science
missions (such as SIMPLEx, Discovery, New Frontiers, Mars Exploration, and other
planetary programs, including those flown on commercial spacecraft). The objective of
the program is to develop instruments or instrument technologies with low Technology
Readiness Level (TRL 1-3) for use in planetary science missions, after which they may
be proposed in response to the Maturation of Instruments for Solar System Exploration
(MatISSE) Program, C.13 of ROSES or the Development and Advancement of Lunar
Instruments (DALI) Program, C.19. In most cases, that will mean demonstrating that
meeting key performance targets is feasible. It is the responsibility of the proposer(s) to
justify the entry and exit TRL of the proposed technology; to do so, proposers are
encouraged to reference NASA SP-20205003605 "Technology Readiness Assessment:
Best Practices Guide". It is also the responsibility of the proposer(s) to demonstrate
how their proposed technology addresses significant scientific questions relevant to
stated NASA goals; prospective proposers are encouraged to review the most recent
Decadal Survey "Visions and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022"
available at http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/2013decadal/, the goals of the Planetary
Science Division as described in the Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Science
Excellence available at http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy/, and the
astrobiology strategy at

C.12-1
https://nai.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2016/04/NASA_Astrobiology_Strategy_2015_FI
NAL_041216.pdf. Proposed investigations may target any Solar System body except
the Earth and Sun in order to advance the objectives outlined in the Science Plan. Note
that the next Decadal Survey report is expected in the Spring of 2022; when it is
released, proposals submitted after that time should reference it instead of “Visions and
Voyages.”
PICASSO is an instrument hardware development program and as such does not
support mission operation and system software or platform technologies such as
materials and structures, power generation or conditioning, communications, small
satellites, landers, rovers, or any spacecraft technology that does not directly address
planetary science instrumentation. Integrating multiple existing instrument systems does
not generally demonstrate the proof-of-concept of a new instrument element. In
addition, PICASSO does not support proposals that seek to develop ground-based
laboratory instruments, or instruments for astronomical or astrophysical observations.
Instrument systems that have already demonstrated key performance targets (i.e.,
achieved TRL 4+) can be proposed to the MatISSE program (C.13) or DALI program
(C.19) to be matured for fit, form and function, and testing in relevant use environments.
The nature of specific efforts selected for funding will vary, with emphasis given to
innovative technologies that substantially improve instrument measurement capabilities.
Explicit comparisons to the current state-of-the-art must quantitatively demonstrate the
expected improvements and what new science such improvements would enable. It is
anticipated that the science payloads on most future planetary science spacecraft will
be limited to small, low-mass, and low power consumption instruments.
2. Programmatic Considerations
2.1 Special Requirements for Proposals
Proposals are solicited under this program element for instrument development only for
the mission focus areas described in the Decadal Survey or the Science Plan. All
proposals submitted to this program element must specify:
• The mission focus area for which the proposed instrument or component technology
is applicable. Instruments that are applicable to more than one mission focus area
are encouraged.
• The science objectives of the proposed instrument or component technology. The
relationship between the science objectives and the instrument capabilities must be
clearly demonstrated. For those instruments applicable to more than one mission,
focus area, or capable of meeting multiple science objectives, examples of science
objectives for the proposed mission or missions must be given.
• A quantitative explanation of the key performance metric that is proposed to be
advanced, with a quantitative comparison to the state-of-the-art. The state-of-the-art
should be a comparison to a similar flight instrument if possible, otherwise a clear
definition of the state-of-the-art should be described.
• A detailed description and justification for the entry TRL and a detailed plan for
raising the instrument system to the proposed exit TRL. The plan must include a
description of milestones, as well as discussions of how the proposed research will
advance the TRL of the instrument by a minimum of one TRL. A full description of

C.12-2
 Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) 1- 9 appears in Appendix E of NASA
Procedural Requirement 7123.1C and is available on the web at
https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7123_001C_&page_
name=AppendixE.
• How the proposed instrument system or component technology would address
planetary protection requirements, as described in the latest NASA Procedural
Requirements document, NPR 8715.24. Restrictions on operation and hardware
cleanliness apply to all instrument systems that are intended to operate in
environments where Earth life could proliferate – currently that is considered to be
Mars, Europa, Enceladus, and anywhere in the Solar System where warm ice or
liquid water is possible and includes instrument systems or component technology
associated with detection of signs of life or biosignatures. To address this
requirement the proposal shall, at a level appropriate to the exit TRL:
o Establish whether the instrument will require planetary protection protocols.
o If the instrument requires planetary protection protocols, describe which specific
components could pose a challenge.
o Describe possible mitigation strategies to meet planetary protection requirements.
The instrument developer is encouraged to communicate informally with the Office of
Planetary Protection regarding planetary protection categorization and associated
requirements with a future mission interest as they relate to instrument design and
development. For additional information, proposers may contact the NASA Planetary
Protection Officer, Dr. Nick Bernardini at james.n.benardini@nasa.gov and cc the
point of contact below.
• An entry level Summary Chart, not counted in the page limit, shall be submitted as a
separately uploaded appendix PDF file to the proposal. A template is available from
the SARA web page at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-planetary-
science-division-appendix-c-roses-proposals. The Summary Chart shall contain the
following information:
o Title, Principal Investigator Name and Institution
o Target (Mars subsurface, airless body surface, planetary body flyby or orbit, etc.)
o Bulleted list of science that will be enabled by new instrument
o Bulleted list of major objectives of proposed work
o Co-Investigators (Co-Is)/Institutions
o A figure illustrating and clarifying the proposed concept
o Top level Milestones
o Entry and exit TRLs
2.2 Additional Selection Considerations
In addition to the criteria specified in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, the following
will also be considered when formulating PICASSO selection recommendations:
• The extent to which the instrument system or subsystem addresses a priority
science goal of the mission or missions for which it would be a candidate for flight;
• The extent to which the proposed instrument system or subsystem is applicable to
multiple Planetary Science missions;

C.12-3
• The Planetary Science Division strongly encourages proposers to investigate current
and recent Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) awards
(http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/abstract_archives) for possible teaming and leveraging of
emerging technologies. Collaborations leveraging SBIR funded technologies will be
given preference. In addition, selectable proposals that leverage funding from NASA
technology development offices and programs such as those in the Space
Technology Mission Directorate, will be given additional consideration.
2.3 Award Duration and Types
The typical award duration is three years. Proposals for less than three years are
encouraged for projects that can be completed on shorter timescales. All awards will be
in the form of grants to non-governmental institutions, intra-agency awards to NASA
labs including JPL, and interagency funds transfers for other Federal organizations.
2.4 Technical Reporting Requirements
Once awarded, all Progress Reporting deliverables applicable to this PICASSO
solicitation shall be submitted to the web-based Planetary Electronic Reporting System
(ERS). A user account on ERS will be provided to the PI upon award. Due to NASA IT
security requirements, all PIs must register with the Identity Management and Account
Exchange (IdMAX) system before a user account on ERS will be established. To create
an IdMAX account, some personal information will be required. All submissions shall be
made in PDF format.
The following deliverables shall be required of institutions that win awards. In cases
where subawards exist, consolidated project reports are the responsibility of the PI. The
proposed budget should provide for these reporting requirements. In this context,
"Annual" refers to a twelve-month task effort that commences at award.
2.4.1 Semi-Annual Progress Report Deliverable
The PI shall provide a written Semi-Annual Progress Report. These reports are phased
such that end-of-year reports are aligned with required reporting for the NSSC.
The Semi-Annual Report must:
1. Describe the primary findings, technology development results, and technical
status, e.g., status of design, construction of prototype implementations, results of
tests and/or proof-of-concept demonstrations, etc.;
2. Describe the work planned for the remainder of the project and critical issues that
need to be resolved to successfully complete the remaining planned work;
3. Quantitatively summarize the cost and schedule status of the project, including any
schedule slippage/acceleration;
4. Include an updated Summary Chart noting changes in team membership,
milestones, schedule, and updates to the TRL;
5. A TRL assessment sheet that describes the current TRL of the effort and plans for
maturing the technology to the anticipated final TRL of the effort;
6. Report any educational and outreach components of the project, e.g., graduate
degrees, educational activities; technology infusion or patents applied for or
granted; journal or conference publications; presentations at professional

C.12-4
 conferences, seminars, and symposia; demonstrations; media exposure; and, other
activities that contributed to the overall success of the research project.
The release of the PI's annual budget allocation is contingent on the timely submission
of the written Semi-Annual Progress Report deliverable.
2.4.2 Final Report
The PI shall provide a written Final Report at the completion of the activity. The Final
Report is similar to the Semi-Annual Report and includes all of the products required in
the Semi-Annual Report, with the following exceptions:
• The Final Review must provide conclusions of the work performed and make
recommendations for follow-on activities that should be pursued;
• As this is the Final Report, there is no need to present future work plans or a cost
profile.
The written Final Report shall include the following:
1. Background of the project, including the science rationale for conducting this
technology development;
2. Results of all analyses, element, subsystem, or system designs and/or prototyping
implementations and designs;
3. Performance analysis results of tests and/or demonstrations; estimation of
reduction(s) in size, mass, power, volume, and/or cost; improved performance;
description of newly enabled capability; and documentation of technology
dependencies;
4. Tables, graphs, diagrams, curves, sketches, photographs, and drawings in sufficient
detail to comprehensively explain the results achieved;
5. An updated TRL assessment;
6. At the end of the period of performance, the PI shall provide a final
Accomplishments Chart which contains the following information:
o Title, PI Name and Institution
o Target (Mars subsurface, airless body surface, planetary body flyby or orbit, etc.)
o Bulleted list of science that will be enabled by new instrument
o Bulleted list of instrument development accomplishments
o Co-Is/Institutions
o A figure illustrating and clarifying the proposed concept
o Exit TRL
The written Final Report, Accomplishments Chart, and updated TRL assessment shall
be uploaded to the ERS system on or before the designated anniversary date. Links to
the templates for all of these documents can be found within the ERS system.
3. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
Proposers to this program are not required to provide a Data Management Plan.
However, dissemination of the findings of the effort via conference presentations and
journal articles is expected, and the plan for dissemination should be briefly described.
Archiving conference presentations and journal articles in ERS is highly encouraged.

C.12-5
3.1 Facilities Available to Proposers
Proposers are advised to read Section 4 of program element C.1, The Planetary
Science Division Research Program Overview, for information on facilities that are
available to supported investigators. If their use is anticipated, this should be discussed
and justified in the submitted proposals (especially note the provision for such
discussion in the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment). Also note that, per
the directions in Section 4.3 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview,
for any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must state which team
member has access or provide a letter of resource support from the facility or resource
confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the proposed period.
4. Proposal Submission Process
Proposals to this program element (among others in Appendix C) may be submitted at
any time without any preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1
proposal. See Section 1.1 of C.1 of the Planetary Science Research Program Overview
and https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD. The NSPIRES page for this program
element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that is simply the end date for the current
ROSES, after which proposals may be submitted to the program element with the same
name in the next ROSES. Programs such as this one with No Due Date (NoDD) will
review proposals throughout the year with a cadence that will depend on the rate at
which proposals are submitted. The standard rule for use of mission data has been that
unless otherwise specified, spacecraft mission data to be used in proposed work must
be available in the Planetary Data System (PDS), or an equivalent, publicly accessible,
archive, at least 30 days prior to the full proposal due date. For NoDD programs the 30-
day rule applies to the submission date of the proposal rather than the due date. For
more information regarding NoDD programs, please refer to the NoDD informational
PDF posted under other documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of
these rules is sufficient grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
An entry level Quad Chart, not counted in the page limit, shall be submitted as an
appendix to the proposal as a separate PDF document uploaded to NSPIRES as
document type "Appendix". See Section 2.1 for more details regarding the Quad Chart.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~$3M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~10 awards
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 Years
Neither Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program.
Due date for proposals Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 pm Eastern time on March 29, 2023.

C.12-6
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content of See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
[Updated September 21, 2022]
Main point of contact concerning
this program:
Other points of contact related to
this program all of whom share the
following postal address:
Planetary Science Division
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Washington DC 20526-001
8 months after the proposal submission date.
15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation.
This program is relevant to the Planetary
Science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Program Overview, and Section IV and Table 1
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-PICASSO
Michael Lienhard
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington DC 20526-0001
Email: michael.a.lienhard@nasa.gov
Questions concerning Discovery or
Astrobiology Program may be addressed to:
Mary A. Voytek
Senior Scientist for Astrobiology
Telephone: 202-358-1577
Email: mary.voytek-1@nasa.gov
Continued…
C.12-7
Other points of contact related to
this program all of whom share the
following postal address:
Planetary Science Division
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Washington DC 20526-001
Questions concerning Lunar scientific
objectives may be addressed to:
Sarah Noble
Telephone: 202-358-2492
Email: sarah.noble-1@nasa.gov
Questions concerning New Frontiers Program
may be addressed to:
Curt Niebur
New Frontiers Program Discipline Scientist
Telephone: 202-358-0390
Email: curt.neibur@nasa.gov
Questions concerning Mars Exploration
Program may be addressed to:
Michael A. Meyer
Lead Scientist
Mars Exploration Program
Telephone: 202-358-0307
Email: michael.a.meyer@nasa.gov
C.12-8
C.13 MATURATION OF INSTRUMENTS FOR SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION
NOTICE: In Section 5, the main POC for this program has been
changed to Michael Lienhard. New text is in bold.
This program element continues to use a two-step proposal
submission process described in Section 2 of Appendix C.1. The entry
level Technology Readiness Level for this program has been raised to
TRL 4 in order to more clearly differentiate this program from the
PICASSO program. Planetary protection requirements are imposed on
instruments intended to operate in an environment where Earth life
could proliferate, see Section 2.1 for more details. Proposals must
include an entry Summary Chart submitted as a separately uploaded
appendix along with the Step-2 proposal, see Section 2.1 for more
details. Progress reports are due Quarterly, see Section 2.4. No data
management plan is requested for this program element.
1. Scope of Program
The Maturation of Instruments for Solar System Exploration (MatISSE) Program
supports the advanced development of spacecraft-based instruments that show
promise for use in future planetary missions. The goal of the program is to develop and
demonstrate planetary science instruments to the point where they may be proposed in
response to future announcements of flight opportunity without additional extensive
technology development (approximately technology readiness level TRL 6). The
proposed instrument must address specific scientific objectives of likely future planetary
science missions.
The MatISSE Program seeks proposals for development activities leading to instrument
systems in support of the Science Mission Directorate’s (SMD) Planetary Science
Division. The objectives of the program are to develop new technologies that
significantly improve instrument measurement capabilities for planetary science
missions (such as SIMPLEx, Discovery, New Frontiers, Mars Exploration, and other
planetary programs, including those flown on commercial spacecraft). It is the
responsibility of the proposer to demonstrate how their proposed technology addresses
significant scientific questions relevant to stated NASA goals and not for NASA to
attempt to infer this.
Only proposals relevant to Planetary Science Division’s strategic goals and objectives
will be considered for this program element. The MatISSE Program is intended to
enable technology infusion into NASA planetary science missions to take place in a
timely and efficient manner. As such, the technology readiness level (TRL) that
MatISSE supports is TRL 4-6.
It is the responsibility of the proposer to justify the entry and exit level TRL of the
proposed technology. To do this, proposers are encouraged to reference NASA SP-
20205003605 "Technology Readiness Assessment: Best Practices Guide". Instrument
development activities must be planned and initiated so that major technological risk is
retired prior to a science solicitation via an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) or
Request for Proposal (RFP). This program will permit appropriate funding to be applied

C.13-1
at each stage of readiness associated with the development and demonstration of key
and enabling technologies, such as breadboarding, brassboarding, and testing of critical
components and complete instruments in a relevant environment.
A full description of technology readiness levels (TRLs) 1- 9 appears in Appendix E of
NASA Procedural Requirement 7123.1C and is available on the web at
https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7123_001C_&page_na
me=AppendixE
Prospective proposers are encouraged to review "Visions and Voyages for Planetary
Science in the Decade 2013-2022"
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Vision_and_Voyages-FINAL.pdf) for the most recent
Decadal Survey and SMD's 2020 Science Plan "Science 2020-2024: A Vision for
Scientific Excellence" available atError! Hyperlink reference not valid.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/2020-2024_Science.pdf, to
learn more about relevant missions. Note that the next Decadal Survey report is
expected to be released in March 2022; if so, it should be referenced instead of "Visions
and Voyages".
Proposals not appropriate for MatISSE are feasibility studies, concept formulation, and
proof of concept or advanced component development. Proposals for low-TRL
instrument technologies should be submitted to the C.12 Planetary Instrument Concepts
for the Advancement of Solar System Observations (PICASSO) Program in ROSES.

Proposals that focus on high-TRL development of instrumentation specific to lunar

operations should be submitted to C.19 Development and Advancement of Lunar
Instrumentation (DALI) call. In addition, MatISSE does not support proposals that seek
to develop ground-based laboratory instruments; astronomical or astrophysics space
observations; auxiliary instrumentation, such as spectrometers for ground-based
telescopes, mission operation and system software; or any spacecraft technology that
does not directly address planetary science instrumentation.
The nature of specific efforts selected for funding will vary, with emphasis given to
innovative technologies that improve instrument measurement capabilities. It is
anticipated that the science payloads on most future planetary science spacecraft will
be limited to small, low mass, and low power consumption instruments.
The Planetary Science Division strongly encourages proposers to investigate current
and recent Small Business Innovative Research awards
(http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/abstract_archives) as well as NASA programs such as
Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar System Observations
(PICASSO), and Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) programs such as
Game Changing Technologies for possible teaming and leveraging of emerging
technologies.
2. Programmatic Considerations
2.1 Special Requirements for Proposals
Proposals are solicited under this program element for instrument development only for
the mission focus areas described in the Decadal Survey or the current (2020) version

C.13-2
of the SMD Science Plan. All Step-2 proposals submitted to this program element must
specify:
• The mission focus area for which the proposed instrument is applicable. Instruments
that are applicable to more than one mission are encouraged.
• The relationship between the science objectives and the instrumental capabilities
must be clearly demonstrated. For those instruments that are applicable to more
than one mission or capable of meeting multiple science objectives, examples of
science objectives for the proposed mission or missions must be given.
• A detailed description and justification for the entry technology readiness level and a
detailed plan for raising the instrument to the proposed exit technology readiness
level. The plan must include descriptions of planned tests or demonstrations and
milestones, as well as discussions of how those tests or demonstrations will
advance the technology readiness level of the instrument.
• Technological advances are to be pursued as an inherent element of achieving the
science objectives. Such advances may be suitable for technology transfer beyond
PSD, either within NASA or beyond – including to commercial entities. Investigations
with such potential are encouraged but must also describe possible mechanisms for
such transfer.
• The technical, schedule, and cost risks to the proposed project and risk mitigation
strategies shall be addressed in the proposal work plan.
• How the proposed instrument system would address planetary protection
requirements, as described in the NASA Procedural Requirements document, NPR
8715.24. Restrictions on operation and hardware cleanliness apply to all instrument
systems that are intended to operate in environments where Earth life could
proliferate – currently that is considered to be Mars, Europa, Enceladus, and
anywhere in the Solar System where warm ice or liquid water is possible and
includes instrument systems or component technology associated with detection of
signs of life or biosignatures. Applicable proposals must discuss, at a level
appropriate to the exit TRL, how the instrument design and material choices are
compatible with 1) surface bioburden reduction techniques, 2) reduction of
contamination by organic compounds, 3) recontamination prevention, and 4) the
reduction of encapsulated bioburden. The instrument developer is encouraged to
communicate informally with the Office of Planetary Protection regarding planetary
protection categorization and associated requirements with a future mission interest
as they relate to instrument design and development. For additional information,
proposers may contact the NASA Planetary Protection Officer, Dr. Nick Benardini at
james.n.benardini@nasa.gov and cc the point of contact below.
• Because of the anticipated greater degree of complexity, the
Scientific/Technical/Management section of proposals for these investigations may
be 25 pages long, instead of the default 15 pages specified in the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers
• An entry level Summary Chart, not counted in the page limit, shall be submitted as a
separately uploaded appendix PDF file to the Step-2 Proposal. A template for the
entry level Summary Chart is available from the SARA web page at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-planetary-science-division-appendix-
c-roses-proposals. The Summary Chart shall contain the following information:

C.13-3
 a. Title, Principal Investigator (PI) Name and Institution
b. Target (Mars subsurface, airless body surface, planetary body flyby or orbit, etc.)
c. Bulleted list of science that will be enabled by a new instrument
d. Bulleted list of major objectives of proposed work
e. Co-Investigators (Co-Is) Names and Institutions
f. A figure illustrating and clarifying the proposed concept
g. Top level Milestones
h. Entry and exit technology readiness levels (TRLs)
• An optional TRL Assessment spreadsheet is available from the SARA web page and
may be included in the Step-2 Proposal to help justify the TRL case. This optional
spreadsheet does not count against the page limit and is to be placed immediately
following the References and Citations section for the Scientific/Technical/
Management portion of the proposal.
2.2 Additional Evaluation Considerations
In addition to the criteria specified in Section V. (a) ROSES Summary of Solicitation and
(by reference) the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, the assessment of Merit includes
the extent to which the instrument addresses a priority science goal of the mission or
missions for which it would be a candidate for flight, if applicable.
2.3 Award Duration and Types
It is expected that most proposals will request awards with durations of three years, but
proposals may be submitted for projects of duration from one to four years. For
proposals that request an award of four years in duration, a detailed justification is
required and will be used in determining the duration of any award, should the proposal
be selected. Awards to non-governmental organizations will be in the form of grants (or
cooperative agreements if appropriate).
2.4 Technical Reporting Requirements
Once awarded, all Progress Reporting deliverables applicable to this MatISSE
solicitation shall be submitted to the web-based Planetary Electronic Reporting System
(ERS). A user account on ERS will be provided to the PI upon award. Due to NASA IT
security requirements, all Principal Investigators (PIs) must register with the Identity
Management and Account Exchange (IdMAX) system before a user account on ERS
will be established. To create an IdMAX account, some personal information will be
required. All submissions shall be made in PDF, except the Quad-Chart which shall be
in Microsoft PowerPoint.
The following deliverables shall be required of institutions that win awards. In cases
where subcontract arrangements exist, consolidated project reports are the
responsibility of the Principal Investigator (PI). The proposed budget should provide for
these reporting requirements. In this context, "Annual" refers to a twelve-month task
effort that commences at award.
2.4.1 Initial Plans and Reports
If a proposal was "descoped" (i.e., only part of the scope of the project will be supported
by NASA), the PI should contact the NASA Program Officer after receipt of the Award

C.13-4
notification Letter to discuss a revised budget and work plan. No funding will be
awarded until an updated project plan and budget have been received and approved by
the NASA Program Officer. NASA may direct that the project plan and budget be
emailed to the cognizant NASA Program Officer or uploaded via NSPIRES.
2.4.2 Quarterly Technical Reports
The quarterly technical report shall focus on the preceding three month’s efforts. Each
report shall address:
1. Technical status: The PI shall summarize accomplishments for the preceding
three months, including technical accomplishments (trade study results,
requirements analysis, design, etc.), technology development results, and results
of tests and/or demonstrations.
2. Schedule status: The PI shall quantitatively address the status of major tasks and
the variance from planned versus actual schedule, including tasks completed,
tasks in process, tasks expected to complete later than planned, and tasks that
are delayed in starting, with rationale for each and recovery plans, as
appropriate.
Quarterly Technical Reports shall be uploaded to the ERS system starting on the third-
month anniversary date of the signing of the award vehicle. All awardees will receive an
ERS username and password after selections have been made.
In months for which the PI is providing an Annual Review, the requirement for a
quarterly report is superseded by the review requirements discussed in the next two
sections.
Reports shall be submitted in PDF, except the Quad-Chart which shall be in Microsoft
PowerPoint compatible file formats by the required due date, or by close of business of
the first workday following the due date, if the due date falls on a weekend or a holiday.
A teleconference or brief meeting may be conducted between the NASA Program
Officer and the PI to review and discuss each report.
2.4.3 Annual Progress Report Deliverable
The PI shall provide an Annual Progress Report at the end of the first twelve-month
calendar period commencing from the date of award and at twelve-month intervals
thereafter. The report shall include the following content:
1. Describe the primary findings, technology development results, and technical
status, e.g., status of design, construction of breadboards or prototype
implementations, results of tests and/or proof-of-concept demonstrations, etc.;
2. Describe the work planned for the remainder of the project and critical issues that
need to be resolved to successfully complete the remaining planned work;
3. Summarize the cost and schedule status of the project, including any schedule
slippage/acceleration. A schedule milestone chart of all major task activities shall
be created and maintained and shown at all reviews. A cost data sheet shall be
created and maintained, showing total project costs committed, obligated, and
costed, along with a graphical representation of the project cost profile to
completion;

C.13-5
 4. Provide a summary of accomplishments and anticipated results at the end of the
task;
5. Report any educational and outreach components of the project, e.g., graduate
degrees, educational activities; technology infusion or patents applied for or
granted; journal or conference publications; presentations at professional
conferences, seminars, and symposia; demonstrations; media exposure; and,
other activities that contributed to the overall success of the research project;
The NASA Program Officer may conduct an Annual Review covering this content at the
PI's facility or via teleconference.
A copy of the Annual Progress Report shall be uploaded to the ERS system and, for
grants, emailed to the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) at NSSC-Grant-
Report@mail.nasa.gov. The release of the annual budget allocation is contingent on the
timely submission of the Annual Progress Report.
2.4.4 Final Review and Final Report
The PI shall submit a comprehensive Final Report at the completion of the activity. The
written Final Report shall include the following:
1. Background of the project, including the science rationale for conducting this
technology development;
2. Results of all analyses, element, subsystem, or system designs, breadboards,
and/or prototyping implementations and designs;
3. Performance analysis results of tests and/or demonstrations; estimation of
reduction(s) in size, mass, power, volume, and/or cost; improved performance;
description of newly enabled capability; and documentation of technology
dependencies;
4. Tables, graphs, diagrams, curves, sketches, photographs, and drawings in
sufficient detail to comprehensively explain the results achieved;
5. An updated TRL assessment, including a rough order of magnitude cost and a
description and estimate of the duration of the follow-on activities necessary to
achieve TRL 7;
6. At the end of the period of performance, the PI shall provide a final
Accomplishments Chart which contains the following information
• Upper Left: "Description and Objectives."
• Middle: "Accomplishments."
• Upper Right: A visual, graphic, or other pertinent information.
• Bottom: "Co-Is" (name and affiliation), "Entry TRL," and "Exit TRL."
The written Final Report, Accomplishments Chart, and updated TRL assessment shall
be uploaded to the ERS system within ten days of the final review. In addition, for
grantees, a copy of the written report shall be emailed to the NSSC. Note that NASA will
post the Final Report to a public website.
2.5 Planetary Science Division Early Career Award Program
Details of the new Planetary Science Early Career Award (ECA) program are given in
program element C.18. The aim of this program is to support research and professional

C.13-6
development of outstanding early-career scientists, and to help stimulate research
careers in areas supported by the Planetary Sciences Division. This program is an
ECA-participating ROSES program element. Proposals from eligible PIs, or Science PIs
if applicable, selected from this program this year may become the 'parent award' for
future ECA proposals next year.
3. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
3.1 Limits on Use of Mission Data
Proposals to this program element must follow the rules for use of mission data given in
Section 3.5 of C.1, The Planetary Science Division Research Program Overview. If the
data to be analyzed have issues that might represent an obstacle to analysis, the
proposers must demonstrate clearly and satisfactorily how such potential difficulties will
be overcome.
3.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Proposers are advised to read Section 4 of C.1, The Planetary Science Division
Research Program Overview, for information on facilities and data sources that are
available to supported investigators. If their use is anticipated, this should be discussed
and justified in the submitted proposal (especially note the provision for such discussion
in the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment). Also note that, per the
directions in Section 4.3 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, for
any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must state which team member
has access or provide a letter of resource support from the facility or resource
confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the proposed period.
4. Proposal Submission Process
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process described in C.1,
Section 2.
Proposers are reminded that Step-1 proposals are mandatory and must be submitted by
the proposing organization.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of
these rules is sufficient grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~ $1.0M per year per award
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~6
adequate proposals of merit,
Maximum duration of awards 4 Years, (See Section 2.3)
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of Six months after the Step-2 proposal due date
investigation

C.13-7
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of Step-1
and Step-2 proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of Step-1
and Step-2 proposal via Grants.gov support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Main Point of contact concerning
this program
[Updated May 17, 2022]
Other Points of Contact
25 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation.
This program is relevant to the Planetary
Science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
Program Overview, and Section IV and Table 1
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
NNH22ZDA001N-MATISSE
Michael Lienhard
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington DC 20526-0001
Email: michael.a.lienhard@nasa.gov
Questions concerning Discovery or
Astrobiology Program may be addressed to:
Mary A. Voytek
Senior Scientist for Astrobiology
Telephone: 202-358-1577
Email: mary.voytek-1@nasa.gov
Continued…
C.13-8
Points of contact for related
programs, all of whom share this
mailing address:
Planetary Science Division
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Washington DC 20526-0001
Questions concerning New Frontiers Program
may be addressed to:
Curt Niebur
New Frontiers Program Scientist
Telephone: 202-358-0390
Email: curt.neibur@nasa.gov
Questions concerning Lunar scientific
objectives may be addressed to:
Sarah Noble
Telephone: 202-358-2492
Email: sarah.noble-1@nasa.gov
Questions concerning Mars Exploration
Program may be addressed to:
Michael A. Meyer
Lead Scientist
Mars Exploration Program
Telephone: 202-358-0307
Email: michael.a.meyer@nasa.gov
C.13-9
C.14 PLANETARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THROUGH ANALOG RESEARCH
U

NOTICE: This program element is not solicited this year. It is

anticipated that it will be solicited next in ROSES-2023.
1. Scope of Program
U

NASA analog missions research addresses the need for integrated interdisciplinary field
experiments as an integral part of preparation for future human and robotic missions.
Future planetary research associated with Solar System exploration requires the
development of relevant, miniaturized instrumentation capable of extensive operations
on lunar, asteroid, and planetary surfaces throughout the Solar System. To this end,
and in collaboration with other Directorates at NASA and other agencies, this Planetary
Science and Technology Through Analog Research (PSTAR) program solicits
proposals for investigations focused on exploring the relevant environments on Earth in
order to develop a sound technical and scientific basis to conduct planetary research on
other Solar System bodies. The PSTAR program is a science-driven exploration
program that is expected to result in new science and operational/technological
capabilities to enable the next generation of planetary exploration. Proposals must
demonstrate fidelity to at least two of the following three objectives:
1) Science: PSTAR seeks science investigations designed to further planetary
research in terrestrial extreme environments that may be analogous to those found
on other planets, past or present. Of particular interest are investigations that
increase our understanding of the limits of and constraints (or lack thereof) on life in
extreme environments and lead to a better understanding of how to seek, identify,
and characterize life and life-related chemistry that may exist or have existed on
other Solar System bodies. Proposals which claim science fidelity are expected to
result in publishable-quality planetary or Earth science results.
2) Science Operations: PSTAR seeks systems-level terrestrial field campaigns that are
conducted with complete systems and in a manner that approximates operations
during an actual planetary mission, providing an opportunity to understand the
performance, capabilities, and efficiencies associated with the tested systems, while
enabling human participants to gain operational experience with those systems in
the field. Fidelity in this area means that the constraints placed on the execution of
science tasks in the field are functionally similar to those of an actual mission,
enabling the development, testing, and validation of new concepts of operations that
may impact the design of surface infrastructure or ground support.
3) Technology: PSTAR seeks the testing and application of technologies that support
science investigations, particularly those that enable remote searches for, and
identification of, life and life-related chemistry in extreme environments (including
lunar and planetary surfaces).
PSTAR is not an instrument development program. Science instrument technology
proposals should be submitted to C.12 The Planetary Instrument Concepts for the
Advancement of Solar System Observations (PICASSO), C.13 The Maturation of
Instruments for Solar System Exploration (MatISSE) Program, or C.19 Development
and Advancement of Lunar Instrumentation (DALI) Program. Hardware development to

C.14-1
ruggedize instruments or otherwise prepare for field trials is acceptable, but is expected
to be a minor part of the overall proposed effort.
In summary, PSTAR is expected to lower the risks of planetary exploration through
instrument/technology development aimed at or coupled with systems-level field tests in
relevant environments that will obtain scientific data and/or develop operational
capability.
The high-visibility field campaigns to the Earth’s extreme environments that are
expected to be supported through this program element should also provide significant
opportunities for student involvement in exploration, thereby inspiring a technologically
competent next generation of scientists, engineers, explorers, and citizens. Therefore,
proposals to PSTAR that provide for graduate or undergraduate science training are
encouraged.
In addition, because field activities, particularly those with a high degree of technology
fidelity, tend to attract the attention of the public and the media, proposers must include
a plan for engaging with the public and media during their field deployment.
2. U Point of Contact
Mary Voytek
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1577
Email: mary.voytek-1@nasa.gov
33TU U33T

C.14-2
C.15 PLANETARY PROTECTION RESEARCH
U U

NOTICE: This program element requests an optional Notice of Intent

(not a Step-1 proposal).
Proposals to this program element are subject to a relevance
requirement in addition to and that supersedes that in the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation, see Section 2.5 of this program element.
Proposals that do not fulfill this requirement may be returned without
review.
1. U Scope of Program
Planetary Protection is the practice of understanding and limiting terrestrial biological
contamination of specific Solar System bodies and stringently protecting Earth from
possible life forms that could be returned from specific Solar System bodies considered
to be habitable. Numerous areas of research in astrobiology/exobiology are improving
our understanding of the potential for survival of Earth microbes in extraterrestrial
environments, relevant to preventing contamination of other bodies by Earth organisms
carried on spacecraft. As we continue to bring extraterrestrial samples back to the Earth
system for advanced research and analysis, there is an urgent need to understand and
prevent biological contamination of the terrestrial environment. Mission-enabling and
capability-driven research is required to improve NASA's understanding of the potential
for both forward and backward contamination; and improve methods and technologies
for accurate, efficient, and effective minimization of biological contamination for
outbound spacecraft and return samples. The Planetary Protection Research (PPR)
program solicits research in the following areas (in order of programmatic priority):
• Model or experimentally measure planetary environmental conditions and
transport processes that could permit mobilization of spacecraft-associated
contaminants to locations in which Earth organisms might thrive. Of particular
interest are the subsurface environments of icy bodies, such as Europa and
Enceladus, and Mars Special Regions.
• Develop or adapt modern molecular analytical methods to rapidly detect, classify,
and/or enumerate Earth microbes carried by spacecraft (on surfaces and/or in
bulk materials, especially at low densities) before, during, and after assembly and
launch processing. Of particular interest are methods capable of identifying and
verifying the functionality of microbes with high potential for surviving spacecraft
flight or planetary environmental conditions (e.g., anaerobes, psychrophiles,
radiation resistant organisms), methods that can validate and support biological
modeling as it relates to biological contamination of spacecraft, and comparison
to current NASA planetary protection standard assay techniques.
• Model to understand and predict biological and organic contamination sourcing,
transport, survival, and burden level of spacecraft, for both forward and backward
contamination. Of particular interest are mission-enabling models that support
mission designers, project managers, and life-detecting science teams in the
early stages of the mission lifecycle.
• Model or experimentally measure space environmental conditions and spacecraft
designs that could permit a decrease in biological contamination of spacecraft

C.15-1
 during the journey (e.g. bioburden credits) to the target destination with emphasis
on reduction of organisms currently surviving under cleanroom conditions. Of
particular interest is the radiation environment of deep space and the combined
effects of multiple simultaneous stressors, such as a combination of space
vacuum and radiation stressors.
• Identify and provide proof-of-concept on new or improved methods, designs,
technologies, techniques, and procedures to support planetary protection
requirements for outbound and return sample missions. Of particular interest are
improvements to spacecraft cleaning and sterilization that remain compatible with
spacecraft materials and assemblies, prevention of re-contamination and cross
contamination throughout the spacecraft lifecycle, and expansion of materials
and commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware with compatibility to current
cleaning and sterilization techniques. This would include work to advance in situ
bioburden reduction and appropriate validation methods.
• Experimentally measure reduction in viability of hardy terrestrial organisms,
including viruses, exposed to high temperatures (e.g. 200 to 500 degrees
centigrade) for short periods of time (e.g. seconds to minutes). Of particular
interest are mission enabling time/temperature experiments with greater than 7
decimal reductions in viability.
• Characterize the limits of life in laboratory simulations of relevant planetary
environments or in appropriate Earth analogs. Of particular interest are studies
on the potential and dynamics of organism and bio-molecule survival and
reproduction in conditions present on the surface or subsurface of Mars (e.g.,
gullies and ice-rich environments), or on Europa and other icy satellites –
potentially in the presence of a heat source brought from Earth.
It should be noted that the evolving planetary protection requirements of NASA’s
programs may affect the priorities for funding among these areas.
2. U Programmatic Information
2.1 General Information
U

Proposers are strongly advised to read C.1 The Planetary Science Division Research
Program Overview, for information on the mandatory data management plans.
2.2 Program Exclusions
U

Proposals are sought for new projects in planetary protection that are not within the
scope of the Exobiology (see C.5), Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration (see C.4),
Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar System Observations (see
C.12), Maturation of Instruments for Solar System Exploration (see C.13), Planetary
Science and Technology Through Analog Research (see C.14), Laboratory Analysis of
Returned Samples (see C.16), or Habitable Worlds (see F.4) programs. Proposals
submitted in response to this program element should be for new work that is not
currently supported by NASA or for successor proposals that seek to extend to their
next logical phase those tasks performing research in the PPR program that are
currently funded, but whose periods of performance will expire this year. Proposals that
advance scientific rigor, validation, and/or reproducibility of previous research are
encouraged.

C.15-2
2.3 Pilot Studies
U

Proposals for one to two-year pilot studies to demonstrate or develop a new method,
design, technology, technique, or procedure or a new application of an established
method, design, technology, technique, or procedure are encouraged.
2.4 Requests for the Purchase of Instrumentation
U

Proposals may include requests for the purchase or upgrade of instrumentation needed
to perform the work. Refer to Section 3.11 of C.1 for instructions on how to propose
instrumentation costing more than $50,000.
2.5 Relevance Statement Requirement
U

Proposals must discuss relevance to this program element in a (4000-character max)

text box on the cover pages via the NSPIRES web interface for this program element.
This section 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 NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation, and the omission of this section is sufficient reason for a proposal to be
returned without review.
The relevance discussion must explicitly refer to this program element and the section
of the solicitation to which the proposal is responsive. If the proposed work is close in
scope to research covered by any other program element, this discussion must also
justify why it is more relevant to this program element than that other program element.
This discussion may not be used to address the proposal’s intrinsic merit, budget
justification, or any other factor that remains in the 15-page main body, or any other
section, of the proposal.
2.6 Duration of Awards
U

Typical proposals to PPR seek three years of funding or fewer. Periods of performance
from one to four years may be proposed, as appropriate, to the nature of the
contemplated research. Please refer to Section 3.4 of C.1, the Planetary Science
Research Program Overview, for instructions on submitting requests for more than
three years. The appropriateness of the proposed funding period will be reviewed, and
adjustments may be requested. Programmatic balance may limit the opportunities for
funding in some areas.
2.7 Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences
U

The PPR program does not accept proposals for topical conferences, workshops, or
symposia; such proposals may be submitted in response to program element F.2
Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences. Proposers should specifically identify
the PPR program as the relevant SMD program element and refer to the goals and
objectives of the PPR program in demonstrating relevance. Additionally, proposers
should notify the program officer for PPR prior to submission.
2.8 Research Coordination Networks
U

PIs of proposals selected for funding from this program element that cover a research
topic related to the newly established Research Coordination Networks are eligible to

C.15-3
elect to become members of the Steering Committees of these RCNs (For more
information, see: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/astrobiology-program-faqs/ ).
29TU U29T

Relevance to an RCN is not an evaluation criterion for proposals to this program

element, and eligibility for participation in an RCN does not indicate that additional
research funding will be provided. RCNs bring together scientists from many disciplines
with different objectives. The goals of the currently active RCNs are:
• NExSS: to investigate the diversity of exoplanets and to learn how their history,
geology, and climate interact to create the conditions for life. (For more information
see https://nexss.info/).
• NfoLD: to investigate life detection research, including biosignature creation and
preservation, as well as related technology development. (For more information
see https://nfold.org .)
29T 29T

• PCE 3 : to investigate the delivery, synthesis, and fate of small molecules under the
R R

conditions of the Early Earth, and the subsequent formation of proto-biological

molecules and pathways that lead to systems harboring the potential for life. (For
more information see http://prebioticchem.info/ )
29T 29T

• NOW: to advance comparative studies to characterize Earth and other ocean

worlds across their interiors, oceans, and cryospheres; to investigate their
habitability; to search for biosignatures; and to understand life—in relevant ocean
world analogues and beyond. (For more information see:
https://oceanworlds.space )
29T 29T

Information about the additional RCNs that are being established can be found here:
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/how-many-astrobiology-research-coordination-
29T

networks-will-be-established/ 29T

3. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities

3.1 Limits on Use of Mission Data
Proposals to this program element must follow the rules for use of mission data given in
Section 3.5 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview. If the data to be
analyzed have issues that might represent an obstacle to analysis, the proposers must
demonstrate clearly and satisfactorily how such potential difficulties will be overcome.
3.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Refer to Section 4 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, for a
detailed list of the data and astromaterials resources, and facilities available to
proposers to this program element, and how to use them. If their use is anticipated, this
should be discussed and justified in the submitted proposal (especially note the
provision for such discussion in the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment).
Also note that, per the directions in Section 4.3 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research
Program Overview, for any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must
state which team member has access or provide a letter of resource support from the
facility or resource confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the
proposed period.

C.15-4
3.3 Data Management Plans
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(DMP see C.1, Section 3.7), and since samples are an important component of
planetary protection research, please discuss both data and sample management as
part of the Data Management Plan. This must be placed in a special section, not to
exceed two pages in length, immediately following the References and Citations section
for the Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) portion of the proposal. The two-page
DMP section does not count against the 15-page limit of the S/T/M section.
3.4 Geologic Maps
Proposers who plan investigations involving geologic mapping should consult C.1,
Section 3.9, for guidance on submission and requirements for publication of U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) maps. The scientific goal of such a geologic map product
should be clearly explained and justified.

4. Proposal Submission Process

This program element requests a Notice of Intent (NOI) by the due date given in Tables
2 and 3 of this NRA. An NOI is not required to submit a full proposal and is submitted by
the PI, not the organization’s AOR. Proposals are due by the date given in Tables 2 and
3 of this NRA.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposals that
violate the rules may be rejected without review or declined following review if violations
are detected during the evaluation process.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for ~ $850K
first year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~6
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 4 years; shorter-term proposals are encouraged.
Due date for NOIs See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of ~6 months after proposal due date.
investigation
Page limit for the central 15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Science/Technical/Management Solicitation.
section of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
overview of this solicitation

C.15-5
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of NOI
and proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4 of
29T 29T
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is required or permitted.
29T http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
29T
29T nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
29T
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-PPR
Becky McCauley Rench
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358- 0530
Email: HQ-PPR@mail.nasa.gov
29T
C.15-6
C.16 LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF RETURNED SAMPLES
NOTICE: This program element does not have a proposal due date.
Proposals may be submitted at any time, pending certain eligibility
timing issues related to resubmissions and duplicate proposal
avoidance, see Section 4, below.
Special note on Hayabusa2 (H2): JAXA has published its catalog of H2
samples returned from asteroid Ryugu available for allocation. See
Section 2.1.4.
1. Scope of Program
The goal of the Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples (LARS) program is to
maximize the science derived from planetary sample-return missions. Activities
supported by LARS fall into two categories: (1) development of laboratory
instrumentation and/or advanced techniques required for the analysis of returned
samples; (2) direct analysis of samples already returned to Earth. Proposals may fall
into either category or contain tasks that do both.
All proposed work must be in support of the overarching goals of the Planetary Science
Research Program to help ascertain the content, origin, and evolution of the Solar
System and the potential for life elsewhere, consistent with the strategy for Planetary
Science Exploration embodied in Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence
(formerly known as the Science Plan), which may be found online at
http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy/.
1.1 Proposals to Develop Laboratory Instrumentation or Advanced Techniques
Proposals are solicited to develop new analytical instrumentation or combinations of
analytical instruments, or new components of analytical instruments, leading to
significant improvements in the precision, resolution, or sensitivity of measurements
compared to the existing state of the art, and to enable new types of measurements.
Also solicited are proposals for the development of new analytical techniques for
existing instrumentation that will push the limits of current technology, for example, by
the elimination of analytical interferences or contamination problems. In all cases, both
the development efforts and the clear relevance to NASA sample-return missions must
be documented.
Development proposals may seek to develop instrumentation and techniques that will
be used by only a small number of investigators at a single institution, or they may seek
to develop facilities to be shared by the entire research community. For shared facilities,
proposers must include detailed plans for facility management based on the size of the
anticipated user base, including facility oversight, the fraction of time that will be made
available to outside users, and the mechanism for allotting such time on a regular basis.
In all cases, cost-sharing arrangements in the development of new instrumentation or
techniques and evidence of a long-term institutional commitment to the analysis of
returned samples will be viewed favorably in the selection process. Collaborations
among instrument builders and scientists who understand the samples to be analyzed
are encouraged. Ongoing laboratory support (e.g., service contracts) will not be
supported.

C.16-1
The development proposals solicited by LARS must include significant work effort
dedicated to achieving the development goals. LARS is not intended to cover
developments that are essentially equipment purchases, where the new analytical
capabilities are available off-the-shelf and the work effort is limited to instrument check-
out, minor adaptations for applying the instrument to returned samples, or learning how
to use the new instrument.
1.2 Proposals to Analyze Returned Samples
Proposals are solicited to conduct analytical studies of astromaterials already returned
by planetary missions (described in Section 2). Samples needed to carry out the work
plan do not need to be allocated prior to the submission of a LARS proposal. In such
cases, the proposal should address the availability of appropriate samples. Selection
and funding of proposals may be contingent upon final allocation of the necessary
samples.
1.3 Exclusions
1.3.1 Inaccessible samples.
Section 3.5 of C.1, The Planetary Science Research Program Overview, outlines
restrictions on proposing work on astromaterials that have not been publicly announced
and made accessible to researchers for at least 30 days prior to the proposal
submission date. LARS proposers should be aware that this restriction may affect the
use of all or part of the samples returned by a given mission, and may change with time,
especially for recent missions. Proposals to work on restricted samples may be declined
on this basis alone.
1.3.2 Lunar samples
LARS does not support work principally relevant to past lunar sample-return missions:
• Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17
• Luna 16, 20, and 24
Proposals to work on the above lunar materials are most likely to be within the scope of
the Emerging Worlds (EW, program element C.2) or Solar System Workings (SSW,
program element C.3) program elements. However, proposals to develop instruments or
methods that will be needed to analyze future returned samples from the Moon are
acceptable in LARS.
1.3.3 Space exposed hardware
LARS does not support work to study returned space-flown hardware that has been
exposed to micrometeorite impacts, unless associated with one of the missions listed in
Section 2.1. For example, work on micrometeorite impacts on the Long Duration
Exposure Facility (LDEF) is not supported by LARS. Proposals to work on
micrometeorites are most likely to be within the scope of the EW and SSW programs.

C.16-2
 1.3.4 Terrestrial collections
LARS does not support research on astromaterials collected on Earth (e.g., meteorites,
micrometeorites, cosmic dust) unless these analyses are directly in support of the
analysis of currently available mission-returned samples or are needed as part of a
development effort.
1.3.5 Spacecraft Instrumentation
LARS does not support efforts to develop instruments for flight on planetary missions.
See the instrument development calls for information on this subject (e.g., program
elements C.12 PICASSO and C.13 MatISSE, and C.19 DALI).
2. Sample Return Missions
2.1 Completed sample-return missions
The following missions have returned samples, and may be the targets of either
Instrument/Method Development or Sample Analysis proposals to LARS, subject to
exclusion 1.3.1 above:
2.1.1 Genesis
This mission was designed to return samples of the solar wind to provide constraints on
the chemical and isotopic composition of the primitive solar nebula; it was launched in
2001 and returned samples to Earth in 2004. Further information may be found at
http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/. Failure of the parachute system led to a hard
landing in the Utah desert, and many of the fragile collectors were shattered on impact
and contaminated. Intensive effort is underway to document the chips of collector
materials and to measure and remove contamination from the chips. For information on
availability of samples, check the Genesis curation website at
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/genesis/index.cfm.
2.1.2 Stardust
This mission returned samples of the coma of comet 81P/Wild (Wild 2); it was launched
in 1999, encountered the comet in 2004, and returned samples to Earth in 2006. The
dust grains that impacted the silica aerogel collectors during a 6.1 km/sec flyby were all
small (<100 µm) and fine-grained. In most cases the particles fragmented on impact
and interacted strongly with the aerogel. For example, many particles are coated and
sometimes penetrated with compressed or melted aerogel. Many particles impacted on
the sample collector frame; work on particle residues in impact craters in the aluminum
foils that separated the aerogel cells is also solicited. The aft-facing side of the collector
was designed to collect interstellar dust particles, which are expected to be ~0.1 μm in
size and to have impacted at more than 20 km/sec. Examination of this interstellar
collector is extremely challenging (see http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/). In
addition to investigations involving direct analysis of Stardust materials, proposals to
investigate the details of the capture process are solicited. Further information may be
found from the mission homepage at http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/ and the Stardust
curator’s website at http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/stardust/index.cfm.

C.16-3
 2.1.3 Hayabusa
This mission, run by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), returned
samples from the S-type Apollo asteroid, 25143 Itokawa; it was launched in 2003,
encountered the asteroid in 2005, and its sample capsule was returned to Earth in
2010. In November 2010, JAXA announced that a large number of small particles, most
smaller than 10 micrometers, were present in the capsule, with strong evidence of
asteroidal origin for many of them. Most of the particles are curated by JAXA, and a
subset that will eventually comprise 10% of the mass is curated at the Astromaterials
Curation facility at NASA Johnson Space Center. More information and sample catalogs
may be found at http://hayabusaao.isas.jaxa.jp/curation/hayabusa/index.html and
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/hayabusa/.
2.1.4 Hayabusa2
JAXA launched the Hayabusa2 mission in December 2014, and encountered asteroid
162173 Ryugu, a ~1-km diameter, C-type, Apollo asteroid, in June 2018. Samples of
surficial material were collected from two locations on Ryugu in 2019. Samples were
successfully delivered to Earth in December 2020. Approximately 5 g of asteroid
samples were returned. A fraction of the returned material was transferred to NASA for
curation at the Astromaterials Curation facility at NASA Johnson Space Center. See
https://jaxa-ryugu-sample-ao.net/ for the JAXA catalog of H2 samples available for
allocation. Publication of a catalog of the NASA collection is planned for mid-2022. See
http://www.hayabusa2.jaxa.jp/en/ for more information about the mission.
2.2 Future sample return missions
LARS supports Method/Instrumentation Development proposals to prepare for future
sample-return missions. Such proposals should focus on gaps in current capabilities of
ground-based laboratories, and address both the scientific importance of making such
analyses on samples to be returned from these missions, and on the timeliness of
initiating the development effort during the proposed performance period. Highest
priority will be given to proposals addressing missions already selected for or in flight
and to those which can best demonstrate the timeliness of the effort.
2.2.1 OSIRIS-REx
This mission launched in September 2016 and encountered 101955 Bennu, a 500-m
diameter, B-type Apollo asteroid, in December 2018. Samples of surficial material were
collected from one location on Bennu in October 2020. The collected sample, which is
expected to have a mass of several hundred grams, will be returned to Earth in
September 2023. The samples will be curated in the Astromaterials Curation facility at
NASA Johnson Space Center. The first sample catalog is expected to be published in
the spring of 2024. See http://science.nasa.gov/missions/osiris-rex/ for more
information.
2.2.2 Other missions and potential missions
Below is a list of some of the missions that may return samples to Earth in the future.
Proposals addressing these missions are expected to demonstrate the timeliness of the
development effort.

C.16-4
 • Mars sample-return missions
• Future New Frontiers comet and lunar sample-return missions
• Future Discovery missions (Discovery >14)
• JAXA’s Martian Moons eXploration mission (MMX)
• Emerging lunar sample return opportunities
3. Programmatic information
3.1 Proposals that contain both development efforts and sample analysis
Proposers will be asked during proposal submission in NSPIRES whether the proposal
is a development effort, per Section 1.1, a sample analysis effort, per Section 1.2, or
contains elements of both. For proposals that contain both, the development and
sample analysis efforts should be clearly delineated and identified, preferably, but not
necessarily, as separate tasks.
3.2 Requests for the Purchase of Instrumentation
Proposals may include requests for the purchase or upgrade of instrumentation needed
to perform the work. Refer to Section 3.11 of program element C.1, for instructions on
how to propose instrumentation costing more than $50,000.
3.3 Mission data, facilities, and resources
Please refer to Section 4 of program element C.1, The Planetary Science Research
Program Overview, for a detailed list of the data and astromaterials resources and
facilities available to proposers to this program element, and how to use them. Also note
that, per the directions in Section 4.3 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, for any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must state which
team member has access or provide a letter of resource support from the facility or
resource confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the proposed period.
3.4 Use of mission data
The standard rule for use of mission data has been that unless otherwise specified,
spacecraft mission data to be used in proposed work must be available in the Planetary
Data System (PDS), or an equivalent, publicly accessible, archive, at least 30 days prior
to the full proposal due date. For NoDD programs such as this one, the 30-day rule
applies to the submission date of the proposal rather than the due date.
3.5 Statement of Relevance
Proposals to this program element do not require a separate or explicit statement of
relevance. As stated in program element C.1, Section 3.6, all proposals, including those
submitted to this program element, will be evaluated for relevance to the program
element. Consequently, proposers are strongly encouraged to address the question of
relevance in the Scientific/Technical/Management portion of the proposal.
3.6 Data Management Plans
Program element C.1, Section 3.7, discusses the requirement for a Data Management
Plans (DMP) in proposals to this program element. Please note that DMPs are
mandatory for this program element and must be placed in a special section no longer

C.16-5
than two pages in length, immediately following the References and Citations section for
the Scientific/Technical/Management portion of the proposal.
4. Proposal Submission Process
Proposals to this program element (among others in Appendix C) may be submitted at
any time without any preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1
proposal. See Section 1.1 of C.1 of the Planetary Science Research Program Overview
and https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD. The NSPIRES page for this program
element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that is simply the end date for the current
ROSES, after which proposals may be submitted to the program element with the same
name in the next ROSES. Programs such as this one with No Due Date (NoDD) will
review proposals throughout the year with a cadence that will depend on the rate at
which proposals are submitted. For more information on NoDD, please refer to the
NoDD informational PDF posted under other documents on the NSPIRES page for this
program element.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposals that
violate the rules may be rejected without review or declined following review if violations
are detected during the evaluation process.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~$2.6M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~ 10
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 4 years; shorter-term proposals are encouraged
for Development proposals.
Neither Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program.
Due date for proposals Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 pm Eastern time on March 29, 2023.
Planning date for start of ~6 months after the proposal submission date
investigation
Page limit for the central 15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Science/Technical/Management Summary of Solicitation.
section of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Planetary
Science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
General information and overview See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
of this solicitation
General requirements for content of See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
proposals Program Overview, and Section IV and Table 1
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.

C.16-6
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-LARS
Jeffrey N. Grossman
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1218
Email (Preferred): HQ-LARS@mail.nasa.gov
C.16-7
C.17 PLANETARY SCIENCE ENABLING FACILITIES
NOTICE: Amended March 4, 2022. This amendment releases the final
text and due date for this program element, which had been listed as
"TBD". The Planetary Major Equipment and Facilities program element
has been replaced by this Planetary Science Enabling Facilities
(PSEF) program element. PSEF solicits proposals for facilities and
associated equipment to enable planetary science research. Refer to
C.1 for guidance on how to request non-facility instruments or
equipment costing greater than $50,000, either as part of a new
proposal or in support of existing awards.

Table of Contents
1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Scope of Program ................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Facility Objectives ................................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Definition of a Planetary Science Enabling Facility ...................................................................... 3
1.2.2 Types of Facilities That May be Proposed ................................................................................... 3
1.2.3 Types of Activities That May Be Proposed .................................................................................. 3
1.2.4 Exclusions..................................................................................................................................... 3
2. STEP-1 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SUBMISSION PROCESS ........................ 4
3. STEP-2 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SUBMISSION PROCESS ........................ 5
3.1 Proposal Title Page ................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Scientific/Technical/Management ........................................................................... 5
3.3 Letters of Affirmation from Community Members ................................................... 6
3.4 Data Management Plan and Archiving ................................................................... 6
4. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION ...................................................... 6
4.1 Step-1 Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................... 6
4.2 Step-2 Evaluation Process and Criteria .................................................................. 7
4.2.1 Scientific and Technical Merit ........................................................................................................ 7
4.2.2 Merit of the Facility Management Plan ........................................................................................... 7
4.2.3 Merit of the Data and Sample Management Plan .......................................................................... 7
4.2.4 Relevance to PSD-funded research............................................................................................... 8
4.2.5 Cost Reasonableness .................................................................................................................... 8
5. REPORTING AND MID-TERM EVALUATION PROCESS.................................... 8
6. AWARD INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 9
6.1 Funding Information ................................................................................................ 9
6.2 Award Type and NASA Contribution .................................................................... 10
6.3 Schedule for Awards ............................................................................................. 10

C.17-1
7. QUESTIONS.......................................................................................................... 10
8. SUMMARY OF KEY INFORMATION .......................................................................... 10

1. Overview
1.1 Scope of Program
The Planetary Science Enabling Facilities (PSEF) program element allows proposals for
experimental and analytical research facilities to be made available to the community
that does research under the programs supported by the Planetary Science Division
(PSD) in the Science Mission Directorate of NASA. Proposals must clearly articulate the
scientific value of the research facilities that would be made available, as well as
demonstrate that there is a significant need and user base for the facility within the
community.
For a proposal to fall within the scope of PSEF, the facility must enable or enhance
PSD-funded research in at least one of these program elements:
C.2 Emerging Worlds
C.3 Solar System Workings
C.4 Planetary Data Archiving and Restoration (PDAR)
C.5 Exobiology
C.6 Solar System Observations
C.14 Planetary Science and Technology through Analog Research (PSTAR)
C.15 Planetary Protection Research
C.16 Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples (LARS)
C.20 Planetary Science Early Career Award
C.22 Interdisciplinary Consortia for Astrobiology Research (ICAR)
F.3 Exoplanets Research Program (cross-divisional)
F.4 Habitable Worlds (cross-divisional)
Planetary Science Internal Scientist Funding Model (ISFM)
NASA strongly encourages minority-serving institutions to participate in proposals, and
the meaningful participation of such institutions (e.g., through scientific collaboration)
may be considered as a programmatic factor in selection. Minority institutions may
participate within PSEF proposals in multiple ways: either as a Facility PI, as funded
members of a proposal team, or as unfunded partners. Proposers seeking to include
MSIs in their team may consider, for example, referring to the Minority Serving
Institution (MSI) Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/ to find potential
participants on their proposals.
1.2 Facility Objectives
The PSEF program intends to fund facilities housing combinations of equipment,
instruments, infrastructure, and technical expertise capable of supporting the research
of a broad user base performing research relevant to NASA’s Planetary Science
Division. Securing stable funding for these facilities through a combination of individual
R&A awards can be challenging, and poses a risk for the operability of instruments,
equipment and laboratories in which NASA has made significant investments. The

C.17-2
PSEF program is intended to benefit the planetary science community by providing
stable funding for high-value facilities, coupled with periodic review.
1.2.1 Definition of a Planetary Science Enabling Facility
A Planetary Science Enabling Facility is defined as: a combination of equipment,
instrumentation, infrastructure, or staff, typically for performing complex or challenging
experiments or measurements, that are otherwise not widely available to the
community.
1.2.2 Types of Facilities That May be Proposed
A PSEF must be dedicated to enabling one or more of the following activities. Note that
PSEFs that include sample preparation must also enable one of the other activities:
• Characterization: Analyzing the chemical, isotopic, or physical properties of
materials
• Experimentation: Performing experiments on materials under defined
environmental conditions
• Synthesis: Synthesizing new materials under defined environmental conditions
• Sample preparation: Preparing materials for analysis or experiments
1.2.3 Types of Activities That May Be Proposed
Proposals to PSEF may include a wide variety of elements, including, but not limited to:
• Acquisition of instruments, equipment, or supplies needed for operation of the
facility
• Support for technicians
• Development of new instruments
• Development of new analytical methods
• Development of standards
• Support for instrument maintenance
1.2.4 Exclusions
The following activities and facility types may not be proposed to PSEF:
• Scientific research; such efforts should be submitted to an appropriate research
solicitation.
• Acquisition of reference datasets intended to facilitate the interpretation of
science conducted at the facility or elsewhere; such activities may be relevant to
C.4 PDAR(T).
• Efforts to develop new flight instruments; such activities may be relevant to one
of the technology development solicitations.
• Efforts to develop new laboratory instruments for the analysis of returned
samples; such activities may be relevant to C.16 Laboratory Analysis of Returned
Samples.
• Computing facilities
• Astronomical/observing facilities
• Data archiving facilities
• Laboratory construction and outfitting

C.17-3
2. Step-1 Proposal Content and Submission Process
Step-1 proposals must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 due date listed in the
ROSES tables of due dates. The Step-1 proposal cannot be submitted by the PI alone,
it must be submitted by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR).
The body of a Step-1 proposal is a single uploaded PDF document consisting of two
parts: (1) a Facility Request limited to two pages of text, see below, and (2) at least one
quotation for any equipment or instruments costing over $50,000; quotations are not
counted as part of the Facility Request page limit.
The Step-1 proposal must describe the Facility being proposed including key equipment
and infrastructure, what parts of the planetary science community would benefit from
the Facility, and from which Planetary Science Division-relevant R&A program elements
users would be expected. The Step-1 proposal must also describe the expected annual
cost for operation of the facility as one of the following: <$250K per year, between
$250K and $1,000K, or greater than $1,000K per year. If cost sharing for an instrument
or equipment purchase is anticipated, the Step-1 proposal should outline how this is
being planned, although the plans do not have to be final. Letters of endorsement or
other sections beyond the two-page limit plus quotation are not permitted for Step-1
proposals.
Step-1 proposals undergo a programmatic review. The goals of this review are to:
1) enable budget planning to accommodate the cost of anticipated proposals.
Proposals that greatly exceed PSD’s present or expected budget requirements may
be declined at Step-1;
2) determine whether the proposal plausibly demonstrates a need for the facility, and
that there exists an appropriate community of planetary science researchers who
might benefit from use of the facility. Proposals that fail to adequately demonstrate
such a need may be declined at Step-1.
No changes may be made to the Proposal Title, nature of the facility, or PI after the
submission of the Step-1 proposal. Any changes to funded personnel (e.g., Co-Is) may
be made with concurrence of the Program Officer and no later than two weeks prior to
the Step-2 submission deadline. Submission of a Step-1 proposal does not obligate the
PI to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal. Quotations from instrument vendors may be
updated prior to submitting a Step-2 proposal but increases in instrument costs of >20%
will require permission from the Program Officer prior to submitting the Step-2. Failure
to obtain such permission may result in a Step-2 proposal being declined without
review.
In order to be able to submit a Step-1 proposal including the required Proposal Cover
Page/Proposal Summary, all organizations proposing to this program element and all
participating investigators must be preregistered in the NASA proposal database system
(NSPIRES) and have received a User ID and password. This includes the PI and all Co-
Investigators and Collaborators. This applies equally for proposals submitted via
Grants.gov, as well as for proposals submitted via NSPIRES. NSPIRES registration can
be done at the website http://nspires.nasaprs.com. Early registration is advised;
organizations must first be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM;

C.17-4
https://www.sam.gov), which can take up to 30 days. An NSPIRES Help Desk is
available at (202) 479-9376 or by email at nspires-help@nasaprs.com.
3. Step-2 Proposal Content and Submission Process
If a Step-1 proposal is determined to demonstrate a plausible community need for the
facility and to be within the budgetary scope of the PSEF program, the PI will be invited
to submit a Step-2 proposal for review by the PSEF program. Step-2 proposals require
the following sections:
3.1 Proposal Title Page
The proposal title page is limited to one page and must specify:
i. The title of the Planetary Science Enabling Facility request
ii. The name and institution of the PI and, if applicable, the Science PI.
iii. The proposed location of the Facility
iv. The name of the Target program elements to which the Facility would be
relevant.
v. A one-paragraph summary of the Facility (which will not be evaluated, and
therefore should contain only information covered in the body of the PSEF
request)
3.2 Scientific/Technical/Management
The Scientific/Technical/Management section of a Step-2 PSEF proposal must contain
the following components, not to exceed fifteen (15) total pages:
(a) A description of the technical capabilities of the Facility including associated
instruments and equipment, and what kind of science would be enabled by the
proposed facility, including which PSD-funded R&A programs would benefit. If a
proposal includes a request for equipment or instrumentation costing more than
$50,000, the proposal must include a descope plan for how the Facility would
operate without the proposed equipment, in the event the equipment or
instrumentation request is not selected. If no descope is possible (e.g., the Facility
proposal is dependent on the acquisition of the new equipment or instrument), this
should be explicitly stated in the proposal.
(b) A description of the potential PSD-relevant user-community, and how the Facility
would benefit their research.
(c) A management plan for the Facility that includes:
A statement of the percentage of the Facility’s time that would be made available to
external users (e.g., PSD-funded researchers, others doing PSD-relevant research,
the broader community). The expected order of priority for access requests is: 1)
users performing work in active PSD R&A awards; 2) users performing work relevant
to PSD R&A programs; and 3) other users.
A thorough description of user access, such as: time of day when access would be
granted, whether access would be "hands on" or only by an operator or collaborator
in the proposer’s group any special access requirements (badging, citizenship, etc.)
any costs to be charged for use, how such costing would be handled, how user

C.17-5
 access would be solicited, requested (e.g., by personal communication, formal
proposal, or other method), and evaluated.
3.3 Letters of Affirmation from Community Members
Letters of affirmation are permitted from community members who are not on the PSEF
proposal team. Note that those providing letters will be considered to have a conflict of
interest in the same way as proposal Co-Investigators, and thus will not be able to serve
as reviewers of the proposal.
3.4 Data Management Plan and Archiving
Although the ultimate responsibility for ensuring proper long-term storage and public
availability of data lies with the investigator performing the research, PSD-funded
facilities have an important role to play in ensuring their users meet this requirement.
Proposers to this solicitation must include a Data Management Plan that users of the
facility would be provided and encouraged to follow if the Facility were funded.
Specifically, proposals should include a Data Management Plan for a typical user of the
facility, addressing the relevant criteria described in Section 3.7 of C.1 the Planetary
Science Research Program Overview, as appropriate for the facility type. In addition,
facilities that acquire data, either to bring the facility online or ensure proper functioning
or calibration, must include the archiving of those data in their Data Management Plans.
4. Proposal Evaluation and Selection
4.1 Step-1 Evaluation Criteria
Step-1 proposals shall be evaluated by the HQ PSEF Program Scientist as well as
Program Scientists of relevant PSD R&A programs.
Criteria to be applied are:
Step-1 Criterion 1: The demonstration of a substantial user base for a proposed facility.
Step-1 Criterion 2: The proposed budget scope including any appended instruments do
not greatly exceed the expected budget for the program
Based on evaluations of the Step-1 proposals, Step-2 proposals will be categorized as
either Invited or Not Invited and the proposer will be notified electronically within two
weeks after submission of the Step-1 proposal. Only proposers that are "Invited" will be
able to submit Step-2 proposals; proposals declined at Step-1 will not be eligible to
continue to Step-2.
No feedback will be provided to proposers that are invited to submit Step-2 proposals,
other than that they are invited to submit a Step-2 proposal. Proposers who are not
invited to submit Step-2 proposals will be notified of that decision along with the reason
for declination.
No changes may be made to the Proposal Title, nature of the facility, or PI after the
submission of the Step-1 proposal. Any changes to funded personnel (e.g., Co-Is) may
be made with concurrence of the Program Officer and no later than two weeks prior to
the Step-2 submission deadline.

C.17-6
4.2 Step-2 Evaluation Process and Criteria
The six criteria for evaluation of Step-2 proposals in response to this program element
are:
1. Scientific and Technical Merit of Proposed Facility
2. Merit of the Facility Management Plan
3. Merit of the Data Management Plan
4. Relevance to PSD research
5. Cost Reasonableness
Selection is expected to be highly competitive, and deficiencies in any of the five
evaluation criteria may result in the non-selection of a proposal.
4.2.1 Scientific and Technical Merit
This criterion addresses the scientific and technical merit of the proposed Facility for
PSD-funded research. Evaluation factors include the appropriateness of the proposed
equipment, instruments, facilities, and technical staff to perform the kinds of research
the facility was proposed to support, as well as the expected significance of the science
that a facility would enable. Also included in merit is the uniqueness of a Facility, and
whether other similar facilities are already operational and accessible for the
community, and the expected volume of use by PSD-funded researchers. For proposals
with equipment or instrument costs over $50,000, reviewers will evaluate the technical
merit of the facility with the proposed instrumentation or equipment, as well as
evaluating the facility assuming the descope plan is followed.
4.2.2 Merit of the Facility Management Plan
Each proposal must include a Facility Management Plan that describes: the fraction of
time available for various classes of researchers (PSD-funded, others doing PSD-
relevant research, the broader community); a thorough description of user access
including time of day when access would be granted, whether access would be hands
on by the user or operations would only be performed by facility staff, and special
requirements for access (citizenship or badging), costs to be charged for use and how
such costing would be handled, and how user access requests would be solicited and
evaluated. Reviewers will assess the details of the plan to determine: if it is sufficient to
successfully to ensure satisfactory Facility availability to the community; quality of the
process for solicitation and evaluation of requests for facility access or use; and whether
the facility staffing plans, their technical expertise, and time allocated for user support
are sufficient.
4.2.3 Merit of the Data and Sample Management Plan
Although the ultimate responsibility for proper long-term storage of data and ensuring its
public availability lies with the investigator performing the research, PSD-funded
facilities have an important role to play in ensuring their users meet this requirement. As
part of the user request process, Facilities shall require requestors to submit data
management plans comparable to what would be submitted with a proposal to a PSD
(Appendix C) proposal. When facilities provide data to users, they should remind the
users about their data management obligations, see Section 3.7 of C.1 The Planetary

C.17-7
Science Research Program Overview. Publications using data obtained from PSD-
funded Facilities shall acknowledge the facility award in the acknowledgements section.
4.2.4 Relevance to PSD-funded research
Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which the science enabled by a proposed Facility
is relevant to one or more of the PSD R&A programs listed in Section 1.1.
4.2.5 Cost Reasonableness
Proposals will be evaluated by peer review for cost reasonableness. In evaluating the
cost reasonableness of the proposals, reviewers will assess two components of cost:
1) Work Effort will determine whether the proposed level of effort (i.e., labor Full Time
Equivalent or FTEs) is sufficient to complete proposed scientific objectives. Salary
levels, fringe benefit rates, and overhead rates are not part of that evaluation.
Proposers are urged to make sure that adequate funds are included for partners
commensurate with their level of involvement in proposed activities.
2) The proposed other direct costs (i.e., supplies, equipment, travel, instrumentation)
will be assessed to determine if they are adequate to ensure the operation of the
facility.
Although cost sharing is not part of the peer-review evaluation criteria and is not
required, the Selection Official may take cost sharing into account in decisions between
proposals of otherwise equal merit. If included, cost sharing must be verifiable from the
recipient’s records, and those records are subject to audit. Should the recipient become
aware that it may not be able to meet its cost share requirement, the recipient shall
notify its NASA Grant Officer and request that the approved cost sharing amount be
revised. This request must describe why the cost sharing contribution cannot be met
and how the recipient plans to continue or close out the project in the absence of the
approved cost share. If the Grant Officer approves the request, then the award must be
modified through an amendment, and the award amount may be reduced in proportion
to the cost share not provided. If the Grant Officer does not approve the request, then
the award may be terminated.
5. Reporting and Mid-Term Evaluation Process
PIs of facilities will be required to submit annual progress reports using a PSD-supplied
template. At minimum, in these progress reports Facility PIs will describe:
• The current operational state of the facility, including any issues with instrument or
equipment availability;
• How availability of the facility has been communicated to the community, and any
changes that will be made in the future;
• The process by which facility use requests are solicited and evaluated, and any
changes that will be made in the future;
• The status of all Facility use requests received during the period of performance,
including a brief description of the rationale for their acceptance or declination,
whether the accepted requests have been completed, or if they are still pending,
the expected date by which the request will be fulfilled;

C.17-8
 • A description of the userbase including institution types and career stage of users
(i.e., students, postdoctoral researchers, soft-money scientists, tenure-track or
equivalent), and whether that userbase is growing, holding steady or declining;
• A review of Facility costing, to determine if current funding levels are appropriate.
Progress reports will be reviewed annually by the PSEF Program Scientist and NASA
HQ; NASA reserves the right to also send progress reports for external peer review if
necessary.
Given that PSEF has unique aspects, NASA may also revise requirements for progress
reports in order to better evaluate the effectiveness of facilities. Any such changes in
requirements will be communicated to PIs no fewer than 60 days before progress
reports are due.
6. Award Information
6.1 Funding Information
The total first-year budget for this program is $5M; NASA anticipates the selection of 2-8
proposals for up to four years of funding. The total four-year program budget for all of
these awards is anticipated to be up to $16M. Additional solicitations of this program
element are planned at approximately two-year intervals.
All funding to non-Governmental governmental Co-Is or organizational entities must be
routed through the PI’s home institution, the Lead Institution. Thus, one grant or
Cooperative Agreement will be negotiated per selected proposal. NASA will fund NASA
Centers (including JPL) and other Governmental Co-Is directly. If the PI holds a joint
appointment in more than one institution, either organization could be the "home
institution" contingent on their willingness to make the institutional commitment; this
institution must submit the proposal.
Annual funding allotments after the first award year will be provided only after the
submission of an acceptable progress report. Note that continuation of all awards is
contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds.
Facilities selected in this program element will undergo a formal review prior to the end
of the second year of the period of performance. This review will assess:
• Progress made towards development of the facility and enabling use by the
broader scientific community.
• The scientific need for the facility.
• The demand/usage for the facility by the external community.
Depending on the outcome of this review, funding for a Facility will be: continued at
proposed levels for the remainder of the award; continued at proposed levels and
invited to submit an extension/follow-on proposal; continued with funding reduced to
more closely align resources required to match actual use by the community, or
terminated early if a facility is not adequately serving the scientific community. The
review may also result in recommended changes in scope of work.

C.17-9
6.2 Award Type and NASA Contribution
Awards to non-governmental organizations will be Federal Assistance, i.e., in the form
of either grants or cooperative agreements, as appropriate for the nature of the
proposed effort, of up to four years in duration. A Cooperative Agreement implies a
substantial involvement between, and contribution by, NASA and the recipient, in
addition to the provision of research funding.
NASA’s contribution to the proposed cooperative relationship under this program
element will be to facilitate community access to Facilities. This facilitation may include
communicating the availability of PSD-funded facilities available to the public through
inclusion of facilities in the annual ROSES solicitations, providing guidance on
adjudication of facility access requests, and administration of mid-term reviews to
evaluate how effectively the Facilities are serving their intended user communities.
6.3 Schedule for Awards
NASA’s goal for announcement of selections is approximately six months after receipt
of proposals with awards in place nine months after selection. However, these
estimates can change, based on the workload experienced by NASA, the availability of
funds, the status of NASA’s annual appropriation, and any necessary post-selection
negotiations with the proposing organization(s) needed for the award(s) in question.
7. Questions
Clarification questions regarding this call for proposals should be submitted via email to
the designated points-of-contact given in Section 8. Where appropriate, questions and
answers will be made publicly available as a "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) on the
NSPIRES web page for this program element. It is the responsibility of interested
proposers to check for updates to the FAQ prior to the submission of their proposals.
8. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program ~ $5M
budget for new awards
Number of new awards pending
~ 2-8
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards The period of performance is expected to be 4
years.
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of Proposers should plan on funding that begins
investigation approximately 9 months after the Step-2 proposal
due date.
Page Limit for Step-1 Facility 2 pp plus any quotes, see Section 2.
Request
Page limit for the Step-2 15 pp plus any quotes or supporting
Scientific / Technical / documentation, see Section 3
Management section

C.17-10
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-PSEF
Jeffrey N. Grossman
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1218
Email: HQ-PSEF@mail.nasa.gov
C.17-11
C.18 PLANETARY SCIENCE EARLY CAREER AWARD
NOTICE: August 1, 2022. The point of contact for this program element
is now Nicholas Lang. New text is in bold in Section 6

1. Scope of Program
The Planetary Science Early Career Award (ECA) program is intended to help
promising young scientists play an increased and meaningful role in the planetary
science community and pursue professional development in areas relevant to the
Planetary Science Division (PSD).
2. Eligibility for the ECA
To be eligible to propose to this ECA program, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The applicant must be the Principal Investigator (PI), or a Co-investigator
designated as the Science-PI, on an award (referred to below as the "parent
award") from a participating program element solicited in ROSES-2020 or
ROSES-2021 (see Table 1 of this program element, below). See Section 5.1
(role of PIs and Science-PIs) and Section 2.1 (ECA-participating programs) for
more information. If both the PI and Science PI are early career according to
Section 2.b, only the Science PI is eligible for an award under the ECA program.
b. The applicant must have received their terminal degree (held at the time of the
parent award) no earlier than January 1, 2012. Time taken away from career
activities for family or health reasons, or for military service, will not be counted
against this time limit for eligibility. See Section 5.2 for more information.
c. The applicant must be affiliated with a U.S. institution.
d. A ROSES parent award may be used a second time as the basis for a proposal
to the ECA program if the first submission is declined.
e. The applicant may only submit one proposal to the ECA program per ROSES
year.
f. The applicant may not be a previous recipient of NASA-managed early-career
funding that is similar in scope and size to the ECA (e.g., the PSD Early Career
Fellowship Program, other SMD early career programs, Presidential Early Career
Awards for Scientists and Engineers, etc.).
2.1 Participating ROSES Program Elements for the ECA
ROSES-2022 ECA proposals may be submitted on the basis of ROSES-2021 and
ROSES-2020 parent awards from the Exoplanet Research Program, Habitable Worlds,
and all Appendix C program elements except Planetary Science Enabling Facilities.
3. ECA Proposal Content and Submission Process
Proposals to this program must be submitted via NSPIRES or Grants.gov. Formatting
rules laid out in program element C.1 (Section 3.1) and the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation, apply to this program, unless superseded by information in Section 3.1 of
this element. Similarly, in addition to any modifications or additions to the content
described below in Subsections 3.1-3.3, any other default parts of the proposal (Data

C.18-1
Management Plan, budget, current and pending etc.) are still required even if they are
not explicitly mentioned. If anything is not required, the text will say so explicitly.
3.1 Parent Award Information
The proposal must contain information about the eligible parent ROSES award that is
the basis of the ECA proposal. The parent award information must be provided before
the Science/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section of the proposal and is not included
within the S/T/M page limit. The parent award information must include only the
following:
• Parent award program;
• Parent award ROSES year;
• Parent award title;
• Parent award PI
• ECA applicant role on parent award (PI or Science PI);
• Parent award number;
• Parent award start date; and
• Parent award abstract (as provided in the parent award proposal, without
modification).
3.2 Science/Technical/Management Section
The proposal’s S/T/M Section may be no more than five pages and must include the
following:
• A description of the applicant’s future research plans.
• How the proposed activities would support the planetary science community (for
example, service activities, dedication to diversity and inclusion, mentorship,
science communication).
• How the proposed activities would serve to enhance the applicant’s career;
To be relevant, the proposed activities must support the goals and scope of PSD, e.g.,
see the strategy for Planetary Science Exploration embodied in the latest Science Plan.
The S/T/M section of the proposal should clearly convey the likely positive impact of the
proposed use of ECA funds on the future career of the proposer.
The S/T/M section of the proposal must convey the applicant’s potential for future
impact, leadership, and involvement in the planetary science community - based on
their career goals, engagement in the community, and previous leadership experience
(at all scales). Information of interest includes, but is not limited to: invited and/or public
lectures, awards received, participation on scientific program committees, conference or
workshop organization, professional society activities, special international or industrial
partnerships, review or editor activities, as well as significant education and public
outreach activities (especially activities aimed at broadening participation and inclusion
of under-represented groups in planetary science).
If scientific research activities are proposed, The scientific scope/focus of an ECA
proposal must be different from that of the parent award(s). The ECA program is not
intended as a mechanism to continue or extend the research pursued by the PI with
current planetary awards. Therefore, only the merit of scientific endeavors that would

C.18-2
significantly broaden the scope of topics investigated by the early career PI will be
considered, since the value of the PI’s current scientific endeavors has already been
validated through the selection of the parent award. The level to which proposed
scientific research broadens the expertise of the PI will be a key evaluation factor.
3.3 Curriculum Vitae and Publication History
The proposal must contain a Curriculum Vitae (CV) for all team members. The CV may
not exceed two pages for the PI (or Science-PI) and may not exceed one page for any
other team members. The CV may include details of collaborative activities (e.g.,
involvement on large scientific teams, including mission teams), awards, service, and
any other relevant information. The PI's publication history should be provided separate
from the CV, with no page limit.
4. Evaluation Criteria
Proposals to the ECA program will be evaluated independently of the parent research
proposals (which will not be available to reviewers of the ECA proposals).
Intrinsic merit will be evaluated based exclusively on the factors below, in lieu of the
standard evaluation critera:
• the applicant’s potential for future impact, leadership, and involvement in the
planetary science community (Section 3.2);
• the potential for significant impact in the career development of the applicant,
through the proposed use of ECA funds (Section 3.2).
Consistent with NASA’s guidebook for proposers and ROSES, the budget justification
and detailed budget will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed costs.
Consistent with NASA’s guidebook for proposers and ROSES, relevance will be based
on whether proposed activities would support the goals and scope of PSD, e.g., see the
strategy for Planetary Science Exploration embodied in the latest Science Plan.
Those proposals that demonstrate high impact of the proposed use of ECA funds will be
given programmatic priority.
5. Programmatic Information
5.1 Role of Early Career Applicant on Proposal vs. Organizational Rules
Some institutions do not allow non-tenured researchers to hold the role of the PI on
proposals to NASA, which might prevent early-career researchers from proposing to this
program. At either stage of the ECA process (i.e., either for the parent research
proposal or for the full ECA application package) the proposal may therefore list the
early-career researcher as the "Co-I/Science PI", and include an organizationally
approved individual as the "PI" to allow the application to be submitted by the
Authorized Organizational Representative.
5.2 Time Since Degree
To be eligible for the ECA program, applicants must have received their terminal degree
(held at the time of the parent award) no earlier than January 1, 2012. Time taken away
from career activities for family (e.g., for the birth or adoption of a child, or for the care of

C.18-3
a dependent) or health reasons, or military service will not be counted against this time
limit for eligibility. Applicants who received their terminal degree before January 1, 2012,
but who may therefore still be eligible for the ECA should email the point of contact for
this program (see Section 6), before submitting their proposal, to request a waiver for
eligibility. This waiver should subsequently be included as an appendix in the ECA
proposal. See Section 5.4 for more information about the window of eligibility.
5.3 Amount and Duration of Awards
We anticipate making 5 selections totaling $1M over up to five years, but may negotiate
phasing of funds with PIs in order to meet the overall program budget profile. The ECA
will only be awarded one time to any given proposer, and will be issued for award
periods up to five years in duration. Each award, summed over all years, is capped at
$200K, but may be distributed as needed over the duration of the award period.
5.4 Relation to the Previous Early Career Fellowship program
The previous PSD Early Career Fellowship (ECF) program was not solicited in ROSES-
2017 and ROSES-2018, while the program was evaluated and reformulated. The
following information is relevant to the change of programs (see also Section 5.2):
• The period of eligibility for the new ECA program has been expanded, from seven to
ten years post-terminal degree to allow PIs who 'aged out' of eligibility during the
hiatus to apply for the new ECA. It is therefore anticipated that the window of
eligibility will again be reduced in future ROSES years.
• Unlike the previous ECF program, the new ECA program places no restriction on the
type of position held by the ECA applicant. To be eligible for the ECA, applicants
may hold a "permanent" position, but this is no longer required. Awards, however,
must be made to a U.S. institution with which the applicant is affiliated.
• Individuals previously named ECF fellows are eligible to propose to this ECA
program for funding, provided they (1) meet all other eligibility requirements and
(2) have not yet received ECF funding under the prior program. ECF fellows who
have received ECF funding are not eligible to propose to the ECA program.
5.5 Future feedback from awardees
For the purposes of evaluating the impact of the ECA program, please note that
successful ECA applicants may be asked, going forward, to provide PSD with general
feedback regarding the award and their career development.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first year See Section 5.3 above.
of new awards
Award size One-time award of up to $200K total
Number of awards ~ five per year
Maximum duration of awards Five years
Due date for Notice of Intent (NOI) to NOIs are not requested for this program
propose element.
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA

C.18-4
Planning date for start of use of ECA Six months after ECA proposal due date
funds
Page limit for S/T/M section of the 5 pages. See also Section 3
proposal
Relevance Proposed use of ECA funds must be
relevant to the Planetary Sciences Division.
General information and overview of See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
proposals Program Overview, and Section IV and
Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Detailed instructions for the submission See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
of proposals 4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is permitted.
Web site for submission of proposal via http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
NSPIRES available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376).
Web site for submission of proposal via http://grants.gov (help desk available at
Grants.gov support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726).
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package NNH22ZDA001N-ECA
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this Nicholas Lang
program [Updated August 1, 2022] Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: nicholas.p.lang@nasa.gov

C.18-5
C.19 DEVELOPMENT AND ADVANCEMENT OF LUNAR INSTRUMENTATION PROGRAM
U U

NOTICE: This program element includes a special emphasis on

science instruments for lunar missions, including, but not limited to,
flight hardware for small commercial lunar landers. The page limit for
the central Science/Technical/Management section of proposal is 20
pages. This program element uses a two-step proposal submission
process described in Section 2 of Appendix C.1. Proposals must
include an entry Summary Chart submitted as a separately uploaded
appendix along with the Step-2 proposal, see Section 2.1 for more
details. No Data Management Plan is requested for this program
element.
1. U Scope of Program
The Development and Advancement of Lunar Instrumentation (DALI) Program supports
the advanced development of instruments that show promise for use in future lunar
missions including expected commercial ventures and NASA’s Artemis Program. The
goal of the DALI program is to develop and demonstrate science instruments for lunar
missions to the point where they may be proposed in response to future
announcements of flight opportunities without additional extensive technology
development (approximately technology readiness level [TRL] 6). The proposed
instrument must address specific scientific objectives of NASA’s future lunar missions.
The DALI Program seeks proposals for development activities leading to instrument
systems in support of the Science Mission Directorate's science goals for the Moon. The
objective of the program is to develop new technologies that significantly improve
instrument measurement capabilities for lunar science missions (such as Discovery,
New Frontiers, Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) and Artemis). It is the
responsibility of the proposer to demonstrate how their proposed instrument addresses
significant scientific questions relevant to stated NASA goals and not for NASA to
attempt to infer this.
The DALI Program is intended to enable technology infusion into NASA lunar science
missions to take place in a timely and efficient manner. As such, the technology
readiness levels (TRLs) that DALI supports are an entry TRL of approximately 4 and an
exit TRL of approximately 6.
While all instrument types, including orbital, will be considered, NASA is especially
interested in instruments that are responsive to the Artemis Science Definition Team
report and/or for small stationary landers and rovers. For this DALI solicitation, NASA is
most interested in technologies that will reach at least TRL 6 by the end of the grant
period and would ideally be ready to build flight hardware for flight opportunities in the
next four years.
It is the responsibility of the proposer to justify the entry and exit TRL of the proposed
technology. Instrument development activities must be planned and initiated so that
major technological risks are retired prior to being submitted to a future lunar mission
solicitation. This program will permit appropriate funding to be applied at each stage of
readiness associated with the development and demonstration of key and enabling

C.19-1
technologies, such as breadboarding, brassboarding, and testing of critical components
and complete instruments in a relevant environment.
A full description of technology readiness levels (TRLs) 1- 9 appears in Appendix E of
NASA Procedural Requirement 7123.1C and is available on the web at
https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7123_001C_&page_na
me=AppendixE.
Prospective proposers are encouraged to review the decadal survey for the appropriate
SMD division (e.g., Planetary Science , Heliophysics , Biological and Physical
35TU U35T 35T 35T 35T

Sciences ) to learn more about relevant missions and also Science 2019-2024: A Vision
35T

for Scientific Excellence and any more up to date versions of the Science Plan or the
NASA Strategic Plan at https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy for the
35T 35T

broader context. Also, for BPS, proposers should review the goals and objectives in
Sections 5.6 and 5.7 in the Artemis III Science Definition Team Report, which may be
found at: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/artemis-iii-science-
35T

definition-report-12042020c.pdf . 35T

Proposers are also encouraged to review the Scientific Context for the Exploration of
the Moon ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11954/the-scientific-context-for-exploration-of-
35T

the-moon ), the LEAG Special Action Team reports, NEXT SAT and ASM SAT
35T

( https://www.lpi.usra.edu/leag/reports.shtml ), and the specifics of planned commercial

35T 35T

missions supported by NASA ( https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-extends-agreements-

35T

to-advance-commercial-lunar-landers ). 35T

Finally, prospective proposers are encouraged to read the Artemis Science Definition 35T

Team (SDT) report . This report captures the highest priority science for Artemis III and
35T

also provides information on instruments that would provide the greatest feed-forward to
follow-on missions and leadup to the Artemis Base Camp. The Artemis SDT report
addresses specific science goals that could be accomplished by deployed instruments
such as geophysical monitoring, environmental monitoring, and the impact of humans
on the Moon. The report also highlights the benefits of in situ experiments such as a
sampling instrumentation suite, volatile monitoring, in situ geophysical payloads, down-
hole instrumentation, geotechnical/physical characterization instrumentation and site
assessment.
Proposals not appropriate for DALI are feasibility studies, concept formulation, and
proof of concept or advanced component development. In addition, DALI does not
support proposals that seek to develop ground-based laboratory instruments, mission
operation and system software, or any spacecraft technology that does not directly
address lunar science instrumentation.
The nature of specific efforts selected for funding will vary, with emphasis given to
innovative technologies that improve instrument measurement capabilities. It is
anticipated that the science payloads on most future planetary science spacecraft will
be limited to small, low mass, and low power consumption instruments.
The Planetary Science Division strongly encourages proposers to investigate current
and recent Small Business Innovative Research awards
( http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/abstract_archives ) as well as NASA programs such as
35T 35T

C.19-2
Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar System Observations
(PICASSO) and Game Changing Technologies for possible collaboration and
35T 35T

leveraging of already-funded emerging technologies.

2. Programmatic Considerations
2.1 Special Requirements for Proposals
Proposals are solicited under this program element for instrument development only for
the mission focus areas described in the relevant Decadal Survey or other documents
cited above. All Step-2 proposals submitted to this program element must specify:
• The mission focus area(s) for which the proposed instrument is applicable.
Instruments that are applicable to more than one mission focus area are permitted.
• The relationship between the science objectives and the instrumental capabilities
must be clearly demonstrated. For those instruments that are applicable to more
than one mission or capable of meeting multiple science objectives, examples of
science objectives for the proposed mission or missions must be given.
• A detailed description and justification for the entry technology readiness level and a
detailed plan for raising the instrument to the proposed exit technology readiness
level. The plan must include descriptions of planned tests or demonstrations and
milestones, as well as discussions of how those tests or demonstrations will
advance the technology readiness level of the instrument.
• Technological advances are to be pursued as an inherent element of achieving the
science objectives. Proposals that include the potential for technology transfer to
other users, including commercial sector for possible applications beyond the
immediate one of meeting mission science objective, are encouraged. Proposals
that discuss such potential must also provide possible mechanisms for such transfer.
• The technical, schedule, and cost risks to the proposed project and risk mitigation
strategies shall be addressed in the proposal work plan.
• Because of the anticipated greater degree of complexity, the
Scientific/Technical/Management section of proposals for these investigations may
be 20 pages long, instead of the default 15 pages specified in the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers.
• An entry level Summary Chart, not counted in the page limit, shall be submitted as a
separately uploaded appendix PDF file to the Step-2 Proposal. A template for the
entry level Summary Chart is available from the SARA web page at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-planetary-science-division-
35T

appendix-c-roses-proposals . The Summary Chart shall contain the following

35T

information:
• Title, Principal Investigator (PI) Name and Institution
• Target (Moon)
• Bulleted list of science that will be enabled by a new instrument
• Bulleted list of major objectives of proposed work
• Co-Investigators (Co-Is) Names and Institutions
• A figure illustrating and clarifying the proposed concept
• Top level Milestones
• Entry and exit technology readiness levels (TRL)

C.19-3
 • An optional TRL Assessment spreadsheet is available from the SARA web page
35T 35T

may be included in the Step-2 Proposal to help justify the TRL case. This
optional spreadsheet does not count against the page limit and is to be placed
immediately following the References and Citations section for the
Scientific/Technical/ Management portion of the proposal.
2.2 Additional Evaluation Considerations
In addition to the criteria specified in Section V(a) ROSES Summary of Solicitation and
(by reference) the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, the assessment of Merit includes
the extent to which the proposed instrument would address a priority science goal of the
lunar mission or missions. Moreover, the assessment of relevance will be compared to
the pertinent Decadal Survey or other documents cited above.
2.3 Award Duration and Types
It is expected that most proposals will request awards with durations of three years, but
proposals may be submitted for projects of duration from one to four years. For
proposals that request an award of four years in duration, a detailed justification is
required and will be used in determining the duration of any award, should the proposal
be selected. Awards to non-governmental organizations will be in the form of grants (or
cooperative agreements if appropriate).
2.4 Technical Reporting Requirements
Once awarded, all Progress Reporting deliverables applicable to this solicitation shall be
submitted to the web-based Planetary Electronic Reporting System (ERS). A user
account on ERS will be provided to the PI upon award. Due to NASA IT security
requirements, all Principal Investigators (PIs) must register with the Identity
Management and Account Exchange (IdMAX) system before a user account on ERS
will be established. To create an IdMAX account, some personal information will be
required. All submissions shall be made in PDF format, except the Summary Chart
which shall be in Microsoft PowerPoint.
The following reports shall be required of institutions that win awards. In cases where
subcontract arrangements exist, consolidated project reports are the responsibility of
the Principal Investigator (PI). The proposed budget should provide for these reporting
requirements. In this context, "Annual" refers to a twelve-month task effort that
commences at award.
2.4.1 Quarterly Technical Reports
The quarterly technical report shall focus on the preceding three month’s efforts. Each
report shall address:
1. Technical status: The PI shall summarize accomplishments for the preceding
three months, including technical accomplishments (trade study results,
requirements analysis, design, etc.), technology development results, and results
of tests and/or demonstrations.
2. Schedule status: The PI shall quantitatively address the status of major tasks and
the variance from planned versus actual schedule, including tasks completed,
tasks in process, tasks expected to complete later than planned, and tasks that

C.19-4
 are delayed in starting, with rationale for each and recovery plans, as
appropriate.
Quarterly Technical Reports shall be uploaded to the ERS system starting on the third-
month anniversary date of the signing of the award vehicle. All awardees will receive a
ERS user name and password after selections have been made.
In months for which the PI is providing an Annual Review, the requirement for a
quarterly report is superseded by the review requirements discussed in the next two
sections.
Reports shall be submitted in PDF, except the Summary Chart which shall be in
Microsoft PowerPoint compatible file formats by the required due date, or by close of
business of the first workday following the due date, if the due date falls on a weekend
or a holiday. A teleconference or brief meeting may be conducted between the NASA
Program Officer and the PI to review and discuss each report.
2.4.2 Annual Progress Report Deliverable
The PI shall provide an Annual Review at the end of the first twelve-month calendar
period commencing from the date of award and at twelve-month intervals thereafter.
The PI must conduct an oral presentation summarizing the work accomplished and
results leading up to this Annual Review and must:
1. Describe the primary findings, technology development results, and technical
status, e.g., status of design, construction of breadboards or prototype
implementations, results of tests and/or proof-of-concept demonstrations, etc.;
2. Describe the work planned for the remainder of the project and critical issues that
need to be resolved to successfully complete the remaining planned work;
3. Summarize the cost and schedule status of the project, including any schedule
slippage/acceleration. A schedule milestone chart of all major task activities shall
be created and maintained and shown at all reviews. A cost data sheet shall be
created and maintained, showing total project costs committed, obligated, and
costed, along with a graphical representation of the project cost profile to
completion;
4. Provide a summary of accomplishments and anticipated results at the end of the
task;
5. Report any educational and outreach components of the project, e.g., graduate
degrees, educational activities; technology infusion or patents applied for or
granted; journal or conference publications; presentations at professional
conferences, seminars, and symposia; demonstrations; media exposure; and,
other activities that contributed to the overall success of the research project;
6. The Annual Review should be comprehensive and should include a discussion of
the planned content of the written report.
The NASA Program Officer will conduct the Annual Review at the PI’s facility or via
teleconference. If the review is conducted at the PI’s facility, or a mutually agreed to
location, the PI may also provide a laboratory demonstration, if appropriate, to show
technical results and status. The presentation slides (Power Point) shall be uploaded to
the ERS system at least two working days prior to the review.

C.19-5
Following the review, the presentation shall be updated in accordance with comments
and discussion resulting from the review; this will constitute the Annual Review. The
presentation, updated in accordance with comments and discussion resulting from the
review, together with the separate written Annual Report, shall constitute the Annual
Progress Report deliverable. A copy of each report shall be uploaded to the ERS
system and, for grants, emailed to the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) at NSSC- 35T

Grant-Report@mail.nasa.gov . For grants, the Annual Review may be scheduled as

35T

early as 60-days before the grant start date anniversary. The release of the annual
budget allocation is contingent on the timely submission of the Annual Progress Report
deliverables.
2.4.3 Final Review and Final Report
The PI shall provide a comprehensive Final Review at the completion of the activity.
The Final Review is similar to the Annual Reviews and includes all of the products
required at an Annual Review with the following exceptions:
1. The Final Review must provide conclusions of the work performed and make
recommendations for follow-on activities that should be pursued, with estimates
of the cost and schedule to achieve TRL 7.
2. As this is the Final Review, there is no need to present future work plans or a
cost profile.
The written Final Report shall include the following:
1. Background of the project, including the science rationale for conducting this
technology development;
2. Results of all analyses, element, subsystem, or system designs, breadboards,
and/or prototyping implementations and designs;
3. Performance analysis results of tests and/or demonstrations; estimation of
reduction(s) in size, mass, power, volume, and/or cost; improved performance;
description of newly enabled capability; and documentation of technology
dependencies;
4. Tables, graphs, diagrams, curves, sketches, photographs, and drawings in
sufficient detail to comprehensively explain the results achieved;
5. An updated TRL assessment, including a rough order of magnitude cost and a
description and estimate of the duration of the follow-on activities necessary to
achieve TRL 7;
6. At the end of the period of performance, the PI shall provide a final
Accomplishments Chart which contains the following information
• Upper Left: "Description and Objectives."
• Middle: "Accomplishments."
• Upper Right: A visual, graphic, or other pertinent information.
• Bottom: "Co-Is" (name and affiliation), "Entry TRL," and "Exit TRL."
The written Final Report, Accomplishments Chart, and updated TRL assessment shall
be uploaded to the ERS system within ten days of the final review. In addition, for
grantees, a copy of the written report shall be emailed to the NSSC.

C.19-6
3. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
3.1 Limits on Use of Mission Data
Proposals to this program element must follow the rules for use of mission data given in
Section 3.5 of C.1, The Planetary Science Division Research Program Overview. If the
data to be analyzed have issues that might represent an obstacle to analysis, the
proposers must demonstrate clearly and satisfactorily how such potential difficulties will
be overcome.
3.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Proposers are advised to read Section 4 of C.1, The Planetary Science Division
Research Program Overview, for information on facilities and data sources that are
available to supported investigators. If their use is anticipated, this should be discussed
and justified in the submitted proposals (especially note the provision for such
discussion in the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment). Also note that, per
the directions in Section 4.3 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview,
for any facility required for the proposed effort, the proposal must state which team
member has access or provide a letter of resource support from the facility or resource
confirming that it is available for the proposed use during the proposed period.
4. Proposal Submission Process
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process described in
Appendix C.1, Section 2.
Proposers are reminded that Step-1 proposals are mandatory and must be submitted by
the proposing organization.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of
these rules is sufficient grounds for a proposal to be returned without review.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~ $1.0M per year per award
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~5
adequate proposals of merit,
Maximum duration of awards 4 Years, (See Section 2.3)
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
35T 35T 35T 35T

Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
35T 35T 35T 35T

Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Six months after the Step-2 proposal due date
20 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation.

C.19-7
Relevance
General information and overview of See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of Step-1
and Step-2 proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of Step-1
and Step-2 proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Main point of contact concerning
this program
Other points of contact for related
programs
See Section 2.2. This program is relevant to the
Science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
Program Overview, and Section IV and Table 1
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4
35T 35T
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
35T 35T
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
35T 35T
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
35T 35T
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
35T 35T
NNH22ZDA001N-DALI
Ryan Stephan
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington DC 20526-0001
Telephone: 832-289-5533
Email: Ryan.A.Stephan@nasa.gov
35T 35T
Questions related to the Biological and Physical
Sciences Division may be addressed to:
Kevin Sato
BPS Program Scientist for Exploration
Telephone: 202-358-0390
Email: kevin.y.sato@nasa.gov
35T 35T
Continued…
C.19-8
Other points of contact for related
programs, all of whom share this
mailing address:
Planetary Science Division
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Washington DC 20526-0001
Questions related to the Heliophysics Division
may be addressed to:
Roshanak Hakimzadeh
Telephone: 202-358-0784
Email: hakimzadeh@nasa.gov
35T 35T
Questions concerning Discovery or
Astrobiology Program may be addressed to:
Mary A. Voytek
Senior Scientist for Astrobiology
Telephone: 202-358-1577
Email: mary.voytek-1@nasa.gov
35T
Questions concerning New Frontiers Program
may be addressed to:
Curt Niebur
New Frontiers Program Scientist
Telephone: 202-358-0390
Email: curt.neibur@nasa.gov
35T
The Lunar Science Point of Contact is:
Sarah Noble
Telephone: (202) 358-2492
Email: sarah.noble-1@nasa.gov
35T 35T
C.19-9
C.20 INTERDISCIPLINARY CONSORTIA FOR ASTROBIOLOGY RESEARCH
NOTICE: Amended May 16, 2022. This Amendment releases final text
for this program element which was previously listed as TBD. 5-page
Step-1 proposals are due September 15, 2022, and 25-page Step-2
proposals are due January 10, 2023.
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process
in which team members may not be added after Step-1, see Section 4.
Participants on awards selected via this program element will become
members of the Astrobiology Program Research Coordination
Networks that are relevant to their selected research. For more
information about these networks, see Section 2.12 of this program
element.
This program element differs from the default in ROSES and/or C.1
The Planetary Science Research Program Overview in a number of
ways. Proposals to this program element must provide a relevance
statement, see Section 2.5 of this program element. Proposals that do
not fulfill this requirement may be returned without review. Please See
Section 2 for a list of program specific requirements.
1. Introduction and Scope of Program
The goal of the NASA's Astrobiology program is the study of the origins, evolution, and
distribution of life in the Universe. It is central to NASA's continued exploration of our
Solar System and beyond. Research is centered on the origin and early evolution of life,
the potential of life to adapt to different environments, and the implications for life
elsewhere. NASA, together with the science community, has developed the 2015
Astrobiology Strategy that describes the scientific goals and objectives of NASA’s
Astrobiology Program, see https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/research/astrobiology-at-
nasa/astrobiology-strategy/.
A wide array of NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) flight missions incorporate
astrobiology goals and objectives. For this reason, with this program element NASA is
seeking proposals responding to the long-term goals and objectives identified in the
Astrobiology Strategy and focused on ensuring that the NASA Astrobiology community
is prepared to respond to the challenge of planning and implementing these missions.
Accordingly, proposals that place emphasis on research that will help prepare for
current or future flight programs directed at astrobiological targets are encouraged.
Proposals for Interdisciplinary Consortia for Astrobiology Research (ICAR) must
describe an interdisciplinary approach to a single compelling question in astrobiology,
and address at least one aspect of the 2015 Astrobiology Strategy. Team size and
resources requested should be appropriate to the scale of the proposed research.
There is no ideal size of an ICAR Team. Because this is an opportunity for larger teams
and for five years of support, the scope of the research, and subsequently the resources
needed, should exceed those typically considered in a ROSES program element (e.g.,
Exobiology, Habitable Worlds).

C.20-1
NASA's Astrobiology Program (see http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/) is managed for the
Science Mission Directorate (SMD) within the Planetary Sciences Division at NASA
Headquarters and supports awards for individual investigator research, instrument and
technology development and testing. More information on the strategic priorities and
research/technology investments of the SMD can be found in the most recent Science
Plan for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, available at
http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy/.
NASA recognizes and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive scientific,
engineering, and technology communities and fully expects that such values will be
reflected in the composition of all panels and teams including peer review panels
(science, engineering, and technology), proposal teams, science definition teams, and
mission and instrument teams. Critical steps must be taken to broaden the participation
of underrepresented groups and institutions serving minority students in NASA
activities. The following web page from the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of
Education links to lists of institutions of higher education enrolling populations with
significant percentages of undergraduate minority students, or that serve certain
populations of minority students:
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/edlite-minorityinst.html or check Minority
Serving Institution (MSI) Exchange https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/ to find MSI
participants. The Astrobiology Program is committed to increasing the participation of
underrepresented groups in its activities, and it strongly encourages their participation
as Lead or Co-Institutions.
1.1 Areas of Research Solicited
The areas of research emphasis in this program element are focused on strategically
important topics identified based on broad research priority areas articulated in the 51
U.S. Code § 20102 – Congressional declaration of policy and purpose [for NASA],
2015 Astrobiology Strategy, An Astrobiology Strategy for the Search for Life in the
Universe (National Academy of Science Engineering and Medicine), and on the need
for foundational research for ongoing and future missions planned with astrobiological
significance. These topics are linked to the five astrobiology research coordination
networks (RCN, see Section 2.6, below) and are as follows:
• Biosignatures and Life Detection (RCN-NfoLD)
Research in this area seeks to understand how biosignatures are generated by modern
organisms must also consider how such signatures could be generated, preserved,
and/or detected within the context of other environments or worlds. Topics of interest
include the investigation to i) determine what the fundamental attributes of life are that
may result in unique but as-yet unrecognized biosignatures or biosignature
assemblages ii) understand the chemical and biological processes involved in how
biosignatures are formed, altered, preserved, and destroyed, with direct comparison of
“equivalent” biological and abiotic systems; iii) determine the extent to which a world or
environment is habitable will likely affect the prevalence and/or detectability of
biosignatures; iv) constrain the variability of known possible biosignatures in order to
expand and improve the available detection methods, and increase the robustness of
methods and approaches for biosignature interpretation; and v) develop new

C.20-2
biosignatures based on universal traits of life and thereby agnostic to the specifics of
terran life. Analog and theoretical studies for comparative studies between Earth and
other planets are permitted.
• Habitability and Detection of Life on Ocean Worlds (RCN-NOW)
Research in this area seeks to characterize the habitability and potential for life on past
and present ocean worlds in order to narrow and prioritize the search space for life
detection efforts. Topics of interest include the investigation of i) the diversity of physical
and chemical conditions on ocean worlds (past and present), focusing on how their
evolution may support conditions suitable support the emergence, evolution, and
sustainability of life; ii) other factors besides liquid water that affect habitability, e.g.
potential free energy sources, physical and chemical environmental factors, and the
presence of bioessential elements; iii) the potential reservoirs of prebiotic, bio-relevant
or biological materials (and processes) e.g., reactions between ocean and seafloor,
hydrocarbon reservoirs, ocean circulation, ice overturn, sputtering, liquid alkane
solvents, methane abundance, stable volatiles, other ices, or surface processes; iv) how
the signatures of life are generated and preserved in these environments, and to study
how nonbiological processes can generate the signatures of life and habitability; v)
instruments and measurements needed to confirm past or present habitability and/or
past or present life. Analog and theoretical studies for comparative studies between
Earth and other planets are encouraged.
• Habitability and Detection of Life on Exoplanets (RCN-NExSS)
Research in this area seeks to accelerate the discovery and characterization of other
potentially life-bearing worlds in the galaxy, using a systems science approach. Topics
of interest include the investigation of the diversity of exoplanets including how their
history, geology, dynamical processes, stellar radiation, and climate interact to create
the conditions for life. Investigations that study Earth and/or other planetary bodies in
our Solar System as coupled atmosphere-hydrosphere-cryosphere-geosphere-
biosphere (Earth) systems, that study the properties of the Sun (and other stars) and
how they interact with the magnetic fields, affect atmospheric chemistry and climates of
their orbiting planets, or that seek to understand the underlining planetary processes
that are responsible for the fidelity, resilience or detectability of biosignatures are
encouraged. Research aimed exclusively at collecting data that reveals the diversity of
planets in the galaxy and the properties of their host stars should be submitted to the
Exoplanet Research Program (F.3). Proposals aimed exclusively at the identification
and characterization of radio signals from extrasolar planets that may harbor intelligent
life are not solicited at this time. Research focused on defining, understanding or
characterizing "technosignatures" as specific types of biosignatures indicative of
intelligent life are included in this area; however, proposals to search for
technosignatures are not included. Research aimed at technosignature detection should
be submitted to the Exoplanet Research Program (F.3).
• Prebiotic Chemistry in Early Earth Environments (RCN-PCE3)
Research in this area seeks to delineate the planetary and molecular processes that set
the physical and chemical conditions within which living systems may have arisen.
Topics of interest include the formation of complex organic molecules in space and their

C.20-3
delivery to planetary surfaces; models of early environments in which organic chemical
synthesis could occur; the forms in which prebiotic organic matter has been preserved
in planetary materials; determining what chemical systems could have served as
precursors of metabolic and replicating systems on Earth and elsewhere, including
alternatives to the current DNA-RNA-protein basis for life; and the range of planetary
environments amenable to life. Emphasis is placed on studies that constrain or extend
concepts of possible chemical evolution relevant to the origin, evolution, and distribution
of life. Studies of sites thought to be analogues to the early Earth or other planetary
environments that might potentially harbor life will be considered as part of NASA’s
broader interest in the search for life in the Universe. Laboratory and theoretical studies,
as well as related data-analysis, will be considered.
• Primitive Cells to Multicellularity (RCN-LIFE)
The goal of research into the early evolution of life is to determine the nature of the most
primitive organisms, the environment in which they evolved, evolution of the earliest
metabolism, and the origin of advanced life. Target investigations include but are not
limited to: i) determining when and in what setting life first appeared and the
characteristics of the first successful living organisms; ii) understanding the phylogeny
and physiology of microorganisms, including extremophiles, whose characteristics may
reflect the nature of primitive environments; iii) determining the original nature of
biological energy transduction, membrane function, and information processing,
including the construction of artificial chemical systems to test hypotheses regarding the
original nature of key biological processes; iv) investigating the development of key
biological processes and their environmental impact; v) examining the response of
Earth’s biosphere to extraterrestrial events; vi) investigating the evolution of genes,
pathways, and microbial species subject to long-term environmental change relevant to
the origin of life on Earth and the search for life elsewhere; vii) studying the coevolution
of microbial communities, and the interactions within such communities, that drive major
geochemical cycles, including the processes through which new species are added to
extant communities; and viii) studying the origin and early evolution of those biological
factors that are essential to multicellular life, such as developmental programs,
intercellular signaling, programmed cell death, the cytoskeleton, and cellular adhesion
control and differentiation, in the context of the origin of advanced life.
2. Programmatic Information
Proposals are sought for projects within the scope of the Astrobiology program.
Proposals submitted in response to this program element must not be for work by the PI
or Co-Is that is currently supported nor for investigations that would extend to their next
logical phase those tasks that have been funded in the Astrobiology program, but with
periods of performance that expired in the last year or are expiring in the next half-year.
Although there is a place in the program for exploration of novel and relevant
environments, selection preference will be given to hypothesis-driven research projects.
This program element differs from the default in the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation and/or C.1 The Planetary Science Research Program Overview in a number
of ways. Proposers should be aware that:

C.20-4
 • There is a required Relevance Statement collected on the NSPIRES cover page
(see Section 2.5). Acknowledging the potential overlap between the topics listed
above and those in other program elements (e.g. XRP, Exobiology, Habitable
Worlds), it is necessary that proposers use the relevance statement (see Section
2.5) to explain why the topic and/or scope would not be appropriate for any other
ROSES element.
• The ban on adding team members between Step-1 and Step-2 is more restrictive
than the default rules in C.1, see Sections 4.1 and 4.3, below
• The constituent parts of the proposal and their page limits differ from the ROSES
default, see Table C.20-1 in Section 4.3 and
• The evaluation criteria differ from the default, see Section 5.
2.1 Program Exclusions
The following restrictions apply to proposals submitted to this program element:
• Research aimed exclusively at collecting data that reveals the diversity of planets
in the galaxy and the properties of their host stars should be submitted to the
Exoplanet Research Program (F.3).
• Proposals aimed exclusively at the identification and characterization of
technosignatures from extrasolar planets that may harbor intelligent life are not
solicited at this time, see above.
• This program does not accept proposals for work in Antarctica.
• This program element does not request proposals for the development or
maturations of advanced instrument concepts and technologies as precursors to
astrobiology flight instruments. Such proposals should be submitted to the
Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar System Observations
(PICASSO; see program element C.12) Program (for technology readiness levels
[TRLs] 1-3) or the Maturation of Instruments for Solar System Exploration
(MatISSE; see program element C.13) Program (for TRLs 4-6).
• Proposals for science-driven field campaigns that are expected to produce new
science results, as well as new operational or technological capabilities, should be
submitted to the Planetary Science and Technology from Analog Research
(PSTAR) program when it is solicited, see program element C.14.
• The ICAR program does not accept proposals for topical conferences, workshops,
or symposia; such proposals may be submitted in response to program element
F.2 Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences. Proposers should
specifically identify the ICAR program as the relevant SMD program element and
refer to the goals and objectives of the ICAR program in demonstrating relevance.
2.2 Additional Funding for Relevant Instrumentation Construction or Upgrade
Proposals may include requests for the purchase or upgrade of instrumentation needed
to perform the work. Refer to Section 3.11 of C.1, for instructions on how to propose
instrumentation costing more than $50,000.
2.3 NASA Postdoctoral Program Fellows
PIs and Co-Is on awards from this program are eligible to serve as mentors to NASA
Postdoctoral Program (NPP) Fellows. The tenure of a Fellow must begin no later than

C.20-5
two years before the end of the ICAR award but may extend beyond it. Proposals from
potential Fellows must be submitted through the standard NPP process. The
Astrobiology Program expects to select no more than three Fellows associated with
ICAR research this year. More information about the NASA Postdoctoral Program may
be found at https://npp.orau.org/.
2.4 Planetary Science Division Early Career Award Program
Details of the new Planetary Science Early Career Award (ECA) program are given in
program element C.18. The aim of this program is to support research and professional
development of outstanding early-career scientists, and to help stimulate research
careers in areas supported by the Planetary Sciences Division. This program is an
ECA-participating ROSES program element. Proposals from eligible PIs, or Science PIs
if applicable, selected from this program in 2022 may become the 'parent award' for
future ECA proposals (i.e., in 2023 or later).
2.5 Relevance Statement Requirement
Proposals must discuss relevance to this program element in a (4000-character max)
text box on the cover pages via the NSPIRES web interface for this program element.
This statement is outside of the 25-page Research Plan and the relocation of the
relevance discussion does not decrease that 25-page limit. This requirement
supersedes the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation, and the omission of this statement is sufficient reason for a proposal to be
returned without review.
The relevance discussion must explicitly refer to the section of this program element to
which the proposal is responsive. The relevance discussion must identify the RCN(s) to
which the proposed research is most closely related and include how the proposed
research will contribute to the goals of that RCN. If the proposed work is close in scope
to research covered by any other program element, this discussion must also justify why
it is more relevant to this program element than that other program element. This
discussion may not be used to address the proposal’s intrinsic merit, budget
justification, or any other factor that remains in the 25-page main body, or any other
section, of the proposal.
2.6 Research Coordination Networks
PIs of proposals selected for funding from this program element will become members
of the Steering Committee(s) of the RCN(s) to which their research topic is related. For
more information, see: Coordinating Astrobiology Research. Relevance to an RCN is an
evaluation criterion for proposals to this program element, and eligibility for participation
in an RCN does not indicate that additional research funding will be provided. However,
PIs will be expected to attend one in-person steering committee meeting a year and a
PI meeting for all RCN PIs (virtual, hybrid, or in-person). The proposal should include a
request for funding to cover this travel. The five RCNs are:
• NOW (Network for Ocean Worlds): a research coordination network to advance
comparative studies to characterize Earth and other ocean worlds across their
interiors, oceans, and cryospheres; to investigate their habitability; to search for

C.20-6
 biosignatures; and to understand life - in relevant ocean world analogues and
beyond. For more information see https://oceanworlds.space/.
• NfoLD (Network for Life Detection): a research coordination network that brings
together scientists and engineers to build a cohesive life detection community whose
research and expertise becomes integral to all stages of astrobiology-themed solar
system and exoplanet mission activity, from inception to operations. For more
information see https://www.nfold.org/.
• NExSS (Nexus for Exoplanet System Science): a research coordination network that
brings together scientists from many disciplines to investigate the diversity of
exoplanets and to learn how their history, geology, and climate interact to create the
conditions for life. For more information see https://nexss.info/.
• PCE3 (Prebiotic Chemistry and Early Earth Environments): a research coordination
network that brings together those interested in how to investigate the delivery,
synthesis, and fate of small molecules under the conditions of the Early Earth, and
the subsequent formation of proto-biological molecules and pathways that lead to
systems harboring the potential for life. For more information see
http://prebioticchem.info/.
• LIFE (From Early Cells to Multicellularity): a research coordination network that
brings together biologists, chemists, biochemist, ecologists, geologist, etc., to
investigate the earliest biological processes and the evolution of life on Earth into
more complex organisms up to the advent of multicellularity. For more information
see http://www.lifeRCN.org.
2.7 Award Type and Funding Information
Proposals to ICAR will have a nominal five-year period of performance and are
expected to start in June 2023. It is anticipated that $10 M will be available for this
selection in the first award year, leading to 10-14 awards, each of five years
duration. If the appropriated funds available are less than anticipated, then fewer
awards may be made. It is also anticipated that the same amount of funding as the
first year will be available in the subsequent award years. Annual funding allotments
after the first award year will be provided only after the submission of an acceptable
progress report (see Section 6.3). Note that all funding awards are contingent upon
the availability of appropriated funds. It is anticipated that the awards to non-
governmental organizations will be grants.
3. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
3.1 Limits on Use of Mission Data
Proposals to this program element must follow the rules for use of mission data given in
Section 3.5. of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview. If the data to
be analyzed have issues that might represent an obstacle to analysis, the proposers
must demonstrate clearly and satisfactorily how such potential difficulties will be
overcome.

C.20-7
3.2 Science Management Plan
Each proposal must include a separate plan of up to four pages that describes how the
staff, facilities, and other resources identified in the proposal will be managed to
achieve the interdisciplinary research objectives.
3.3 Data Management Plans
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(see C.1, Section 3.7) and, since samples are an important component of ICAR
Research, please discuss both data and sample management as part of the Data
Management Plan. This must be placed in a special section, not to exceed two pages in
length, immediately following the Science Management Plan section of the proposal.
These two pages are not considered part of the 25-page limit for the Research Plan
portion of the proposal.
The data management plan must ensure that results are fit for contemporary use and
available for discovery and reuse. Data should be made openly available as soon as
possible, but no later than two (2) years after the data were collected. This period may
be extended under exceptional circumstances, but only by agreement between the
Principal Investigator and NASA.
3.3.1 Other research material sharing, registration and curation
Sharing of valuable sample material is highly encouraged. Investigators are expected to
share with other researchers, at no more than incidental cost and within a reasonable
time, samples, physical collections, and other supporting materials created or gathered
in the course of funded work. Teams are expected to encourage and facilitate such
sharing.
Nonbiological samples collected during the conduct of research funded by NASA will be
registered in SESAR, the System for Earth Sample Registration, as a first step towards
sample curation and sharing.
SESAR operates the registry that distributes the International Geo Sample Number
IGSN. SESAR catalogs and preserves sample metadata profiles, and provides access
to the sample catalog via the Global Sample Search. For more information see
http://www.geosamples.org/.
3.3.2 Biological Samples
Academic, private, and community facilities have traditionally been sites where
biological materials are curated. Not all material can (or should) be accommodated in
these facilities. PIs should archive voucher and type specimens as dictated by
community standards and practices, as required by journals for publication, and as
appropriate to support research results.
3.4 Geologic Maps
Proposers who plan investigations involving geologic mapping should consult C.1,
Section 3.9, for guidance on submission and requirements for publication of U.S.
Geological Survey maps. The scientific goal of such a geologic map product should be
clearly explained and justified.

C.20-8
3.5 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Refer to Section 4 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, for a
detailed list of the data and astromaterials resources, and facilities available to
proposers to this program element, and how to use them. If their use is anticipated, this
should be discussed and justified in the submitted proposals (especially note the
provision for such discussion in the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment).
Also note that, per the directions in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, a letter of
support may be required from any facility required for the proposed effort.
4. Proposal Submission and Content
4.1 Two-Step Submission Process
This program element will use a two-step proposal submission process. A 5-page Step-
1 proposal is required and must be submitted electronically by the Step-1 due date in
Tables 2 and 3. The Step-1 proposal must be submitted by the organization’s
Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). Only proposers who submit a Step-1
proposal are eligible to submit a full Step-2 proposal. 25-page Step-2 proposals must
contain the same title, scientific goals and Principal Investigator as those in the Step-1
proposal. No team members may be added between Step-1 and Step-2. Format and
compliance evaluation criteria are described below. Submission of the Step-1 proposal
does not obligate the offerors to submit a Step-2 proposal.
4.2 Step-1 Proposal Content
The content of the Step-1 proposal must be uploaded as a PDF file in NSPIRES. In
addition to the Principal Investigator, proposers are reminded that they must have the
team assembled with the proposal at Step-1 (if you are not familiar with this process in
NSPIRES please refer to the walkthrough from the SARA web page). The Step-1
proposal shall contain a scientific and technical section, not to exceed 5 pages, that
begins with the title of the proposed investigation and describes:
a. A compelling question in astrobiology that will be the focus of the proposed
research program;
b. A description of the importance of the research program and its relevance to the
goals of the Astrobiology Program as contained in the 2015 Astrobiology
Strategy https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/research/astrobiology-at-
nasa/astrobiology-strategy/;
c. A description of the research approach, including a discussion of how each
investigation in the proposed research is necessary and how it will be
integrated into an interdisciplinary investigation; and
d. A description of how the proposed research complements the research goals
covered by one or more of the RCNs described in Section 2.6.
Please note that the NSPIRES system for proposal submission requires a very brief
summary to be entered into the Proposal Summary field and a Proposal Attachment,
which should be a single PDF file of the science and technical section of the Step-1
proposal. Evaluation criteria for Step-1 proposals can be found in Section 5.1.

C.20-9
4.3 Step-2 Proposal Submission and Content
A budget and other specified information is required. The Step-2 proposal title, scientific
goals and Principal Investigator must be the same as those in the Step-1 proposal. No
team members may be added between Step-1 and Step-2.
All Step-2 proposals must include the following materials in the following order and
using the titles as given.
Content for Step-2 (full) proposals are specified in this document and supersede default
instructions in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the Planetary Science Research
Program Overview.
Table C.20-1 Constituent Parts of the Proposal
SECTION PAGE LIMITS
Step-2 Proposal Cover Page/Proposal Summary As per NSPIRES
Relevance Statement (2.5 and 5.2.4) As per NSPIRES
Step-2 Proposal Title Page (optional) 1
Table of Contents 1
Executive Summary 3
Summary of Personnel and Commitments As needed
Research Plan (2.1, 2.6 and 5.2.1) 25*
Science Management Plan (3.2 and 5.2.2) 4
Data Management Plan (3.3 and 5.2.3) 2
References As needed
Facilities and Equipment (as appropriate) 5
Curriculum Vitae For the PI: 3
For each Co-I: 1
Current and Pending Support As needed
Statement(s) of Commitment from Co-Is and/or As needed
Collaborators
Redacted Budget Summary and Details As needed
Total Budget File (separate PDF) As needed
HEC request form (optional separate PDF) As per RMS system
* Including illustrations, tables, figures, and foldouts.

5. Evaluation Criteria
5.1 Step-1 Evaluation Process and Criteria
Step-1 proposals will not be peer reviewed. They will be evaluated by the Astrobiology
Senior Scientist, the Astrobiology Deputy Program Scientist, and the Lead of the
Planetary Science Research and Analysis Program. Feedback will be provided to the
proposers via NSPIRES.
The four criteria for evaluation of Step-1 proposals are:
1. The compelling nature of the focus of the proposed research program and the
appropriateness of its scope.

C.20-10
 2. The relevance of the proposed research program to the goals of the Astrobiology
Program, as contained in the 2015 Astrobiology Strategy.
3. The degree of interdisciplinarity of the proposed research program.
4. The extent to which the proposed research program addresses the research
goals of the RCNs identified above.
Based on evaluations of the Step-1 proposals, Step-2 proposals will be categorized as
either Encouraged or Discouraged and the proposer will be notified electronically via
NSPIRES. Step-2 proposals may still be submitted even if Discouraged.
5.2 Step-2 Evaluation Process and Criteria
Step-2 proposals shall be evaluated by a peer review panel.
The five criteria for evaluation of Step-2 proposals are:
1. Merit of the Research Plan
2. Merit of the Science Management Plan
3. Merit of the Data and Sample Management Plan
4. Relevance to ICAR
5. Cost Reasonableness
Successful proposals must score highly on the first four evaluation criteria to be a high
priority for Selection. Selection is expected to be highly competitive.
5.2.1 Scientific/Technical Merit of the Proposed Research
This criterion addresses the scientific and technical merit of the proposed astrobiology
research program with respect to the goals and objectives in the 2015 Astrobiology
Strategy. The list below contains some factors found in the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers definition of Merit, but also contains some clarifications or additions specific
to this program.
Specifically, this criterion addresses the:
• Expected significance of the proposed research – its potential impact to
astrobiology and the broader scientific community;
• Extent to which the research is innovative, e.g., asking new questions and
proposing new ways to answer them, while improving on the state of the art;
• Extent to which the entire proposal is integrated towards answering a unifying
and compelling question (in astrobiology);
• Degree to which the proposal is interdisciplinary – that is, the degree to which
it includes and credibly applies the perspectives, skills, tools, and approaches
of multiple disciplines toward addressing the question;
• Detail and soundness of the technical approach and methodology to be
employed in conducting the proposed research;
• The qualifications, capabilities, and related expertise of personnel
demonstrated by the proposal; and
• Facilities, instruments, equipment, and other resources or support systems.
Proposals will also be evaluated on how well they draw specific connections to, and
describe how the results of the work will have strategic impact on, NASA's space flight
programs, its broader science activities (e.g., in astronomy, astrophysics and Earth
C.20-11
sciences), and/or its role as one of a suite of a Federal Research and Development
(R&D) agencies supporting scientific research.
Prior relevant accomplishments included in the proposal will be considered positive
evidence of the likelihood that the proposed research plan can be carried out
successfully.
5.2.2 Merit of the Science Management Plan
The evaluation of the Science Management Plan will include:
• Extent to which the proposal lays out a clear and actionable plan for
coordinating, organizing the team and maintaining communication,
• Quality, completeness, and resilience of the plan of work, including a definition
of the roles and responsibilities of each participant, noting the proportion of each
individual's time to be devoted to the proposed research activity, and anticipated
key milestones.
5.2.3 Merit of the Data Management Plan
The data management plan will be evaluated for the quality and completeness of the
required elements given in Section 3.3, above.
5.2.4 Relevance to ICAR
The assessment of relevance will be based on alignment with the list of topics solicited
in Section 1.1 of this document, the RCNs in Section 2.6, and goals and objectives in
the 2015 Astrobiology Strategy.
If applicable, the relevance will also be evaluated by demonstration of the following:
• Support of current or future space missions directed at astrobiological targets,
• Technology or instrument development related to the astrobiological exploration of
these targets,
• Fundamental research having clear and critical but longer-term implications for
acquiring or interpreting data from these targets,
• Synergistic collaboration with other funding agencies, or between the Astrobiology
Program and other NASA science programs.
5.2.5 Cost Reasonableness
An assessment of whether the resources requested are appropriate and well justified, in
the context of the proposed scope of work, will be performed by peer review, but not
factored into the overall evaluation score. NASA Astrobiology Program personnel will
evaluate cost compared to funds available through this program element.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for
$10M
first year of new awards
Number of new awards
pending adequate proposals of 10-14
merit
Maximum duration of awards 5 years.

C.20-12
Due date for Step-1 proposals
Due date for Step-2 proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the S/T/M
section of Step-1 proposal
Page limit for the S/T/M
section of Step-2 proposal
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for
content of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
Step-1 and -2 proposals via
NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
Step-1 and -2 proposals via
Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number
for downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning
this program
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
6 months after Step-2 proposal due date.
5 pages, see Section 4.2
25 pp; see Section 4.3.
See Section 5.2.4. This program is relevant to the
Planetary Science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b)
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ICAR
Mary Voytek
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-358-1577
Email: Mary.A.Voytek@nasa.gov
C.20-13
C.21 YEARLY OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCH IN PLANETARY DEFENSE
U

NOTICE: This program element uses a two-step proposal submission

process described in Section 2 of C.1 The Planetary Science Division
Research Program Overview.
1. U Scope of Program
Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) are defined as asteroids or comet nuclei whose perihelia
are less than 1.3 AU and potentially hazardous NEOs are defined as those larger than
140 meters in size whose orbits bring them within 7.5 million km of Earth’s orbit.
NASA’s Near-Earth Object Observations Program administered by its Planetary
Defense Coordination Office has as a goal to inventory more than 90 percent of the
NEO population larger than 140 meters in size as soon as is feasible. This program
element, Yearly Opportunities for Research in Planetary Defense (YORPD), invites
investigations to accomplish this goal, as well as investigations that would inventory all
NEOs (especially those that support NASA’s exploration goals or that may pose an
impact threat). Proposals that characterize a representative sample of NEOs by
measuring their sizes, shapes, and compositions, or that address potential mitigation of
NEOs that pose an impact threat are also encouraged.
Full PI-led suborbital missions involving balloons, sounding rockets, or aircraft are not
being solicited until further notice. Hosted payloads on already-funded suborbital
platforms will be considered.
1.1 NEO Survey Operations
U

In support of NASA’s commitment and goal above, this program element invites NEO
investigations whose primary objectives include:
• NEO Survey for new discoveries - Investigations that demonstrate the potential to
U U

significantly contribute to the current state-of-the-art for a sustained, productive

search for previously unknown NEOs and rapid reporting astrometry of candidate
discoveries and all other position measurements to the Minor Planet Center (see
Section 3.3)
• NEO Rapid Astrometric Follow-Up – Investigations that strategically obtain follow-
U U

up observations of sufficient astrometric precision to allow the accurate prediction

of the trajectories of potential new NEO discoveries and priority NEOs, with
reporting to Minor Planet Center (see Section 3.3). These may include:
o Candidate NEO discoveries in need of rapid confirmation (see
https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/NEO/toconfirm_tabular.html )
28TU U28T

o Candidate NEO discoveries in need of rapid confirmation and orbit

determination that appear on the Scout list as approaching within 1 lunar
distance (see https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/scout )
28T 28T

o Potentially hazardous NEOs with a non-zero impact probability in the next 100
years that appear on the Sentry list (see https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry )
28T 28T

o Other NEOs declared to be of priority to NASA

• NEO Rapid Characterization – Investigations that utilize ground-based or space-
based telescopes to develop and demonstrate quick turnaround characterization
capabilities yielding NEO compositions, shapes, sizes, surface properties, and/or
C.21-1
 other physical properties or dynamical properties using passive (across the
spectrum) and active (e.g., radar) techniques
• NEO Operational Tools – Software development toward rapid response
capabilities for NEO search, follow-up, and characterization
1.2 NEO Science
This program element also invites investigations that do not fit NEO Operations but
return science that enhances NASA’s planetary defense footing by adding to the overall
understanding of the NEO population to make progress towards NASA’s goals. Science
investigations not responding to these planetary defense goals must be directed to
other appropriate program elements. NEO Science investigations may include:
• New ground-based and space-based astronomical observations of NEOs
• Analysis of NEO data from spacecraft missions (e.g., NEOWISE, Spitzer, HST,
TESS) and from ground-based telescopes (e.g., NASA’s Infrared Telescope
Facility), which reside in NASA or other public archives (see Section 3.1) with the
goal of finding previously undiscovered NEOs, finding pre-discovery detections for
extending astrometric arcs of NEOs, and/or determining NEO physical
characteristics, and not appropriate to other NASA research programs
• Archiving and analysis of unarchived legacy NEO survey and follow-up data with
the goal of finding previously undiscovered NEOs, finding pre-discovery detections
for extending astrometric arcs of NEOs, and/or determining NEO physical
characteristics
• Laboratory investigations involving meteoritic materials that directly add to the
understanding of the physical characteristics of the NEO population
• Dynamical modeling studies of the overall NEO population and/or the potentially
hazardous NEO population leading to improved population predictions
• Other investigations that add to the understanding of the NEO population
1.3 Impactor Threat Mitigation Studies
A limited amount of funding through this program element will be made available for
research to determine the parameters necessary to understand the characteristics of
Potentially Hazardous Objects (PHOs) which are important for implementation of
mitigation actions against a detected impact threat – that is, data supporting the
operations designed to disrupt or deflect the trajectory of an asteroid on an impending
Earth impact trajectory. These studies may include laboratory and modeling studies
geared toward understanding NEO strength and composition properties for informing
mitigation mission design.
2. Programmatic Considerations
2.1 Requests for the Purchase of Instrumentation
Proposals may include requests for the purchase or upgrade of instrumentation needed
to perform the work. Refer to Section 3.11 of C.1 for instructions on how to propose
instrumentation costing more than $50,000.

C.21-2
2.2 Proposals Utilizing Goldstone Planetary Radar
Proposals intending to use the planetary radar capabilities of the Deep Space Network
Goldstone complex may contact the JPL Goldstone Solar System Radar (GSSR) Task
Manager listed below for information on using the Goldstone radar.
GSSR Task Manager:
Martin Slade
Telephone: (818) 354-2765
Email: Martin.A.Slade@jpl.nasa.gov
28T 28T

3. Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities

3.1 Limits on Use of Mission Data
Proposals to this program element must follow the rules for use of mission data given in
program element C.1, Section 3.5. If the data to be analyzed have issues that might
represent an obstacle to analysis, the proposers must demonstrate clearly and
satisfactorily how such potential difficulties will be overcome.
3.2 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Please refer to ROSES program element C.1, section 4, for a detailed list of the data
and astromaterials resources, and facilities available to proposers to this program
element, and how to use them. If their use is anticipated, this should be discussed and
justified in the submitted proposal (especially note the provision for such discussion in
the proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment). Also note that, per the directions
in Section 4.3 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, for any facility
required for the proposed effort, the proposal must state which team member has
access or provide a letter of resource support from the facility or resource confirming
that it is available for the proposed use during the proposed period.
3.3 Data Management Plans
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(see program element C.1, Section 3.7). This must be placed in a special section, not to
exceed two pages in length, immediately following the References and Citations section
for the Scientific/Technical/Management portion of the proposal.
In keeping with NASA data rights policies, all funded NEO search or follow-up
investigations will be expected to make their data permanently available in a timely
manner to the scientific community. Specifically, this requirement shall apply to all
astrometric measurements of asteroids and comets made by NEO search and follow-up
projects funded through this program element, both operational and archival. Such
funded projects shall make their astrometric measurements immediately available to the
internationally recognized archive for these data, the International Astronomical Union
(IAU) sanctioned Minor Planet Center, currently located at the Harvard Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory (see http://minorplanetcenter.net/).
3.4 Geologic Maps
Proposers who plan investigations involving geologic mapping should consult program
element C.1, Section 3.9, for guidance on submission and requirements for publication

C.21-3
of U.S. Geological Survey maps. The scientific goal of such a geologic map product
should be clearly explained and justified.
4. Proposal Submission Process
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process described in
program element C.1, Section 2.
Proposers are reminded that Step-1 proposals are mandatory and must be submitted by
the proposing organization.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in program
element C.1 and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Violation of
these rules is sufficient grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for
~$2M
first year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
~8-10
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards Typical awards are 3 years. Up to 5 years
permitted.
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of
~7 months after Step-2 proposal due date.
investigation
Page limit for the central
15 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Science/Technical/Management
Solicitation.
section of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for See the C.1 the Planetary Science Research
content of proposals Program Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4 of
28T 28T

submission of proposals the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section

IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is permitted.
Web site for submission of Step- http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
28T 28T

1 and Step-2 proposals via nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)

28T 28T

NSPIRES

C.21-4
Web site for submission of Step- http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
28T 28T

1 and Step-2 proposals via support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)

28T 28T

Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application NNH22ZDA001N-YORPD
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this Kelly Fast
program both of whom share the Email: kelly.e.fast@nasa.gov
28T

following postal address: Phone: (202) 358-0768

Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate Lindley Johnson
NASA Headquarters Email: lindley.johnson@nasa.gov
28T

Washington, DC 20546-0001 Phone: (202) 358-2314

C.21-5
C.22 CONCEPTS FOR OCEAN WORLDS LIFE DETECTION TECHNOLOGY: AUTONOMY,
COMMUNICATIONS, AND RADIATION-HARD DEVICES
NOTICE: Amended October 4, 2022. This Amendment announces that
this program will not be solicited in ROSES-2022. It will be solicited no
earlier than ROSES-2024.
1. Scope of Program

The goal of the Concepts for Ocean worlds Life Detection Technology (COLDTech)
Program is to support the development of spacecraft-based technology for surface and
subsurface exploration of ocean worlds such as Europa and Enceladus to develop and
reduce the technical risk of technology so that they may eventually be incorporated into
future flight missions and/or proposed in response to future Announcements of
Opportunity for these missions.

2. Point of Contact
Ryan Stephan
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: ryan.a.stephan@nasa.gov

C.22-1
C.23 ANALOG ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT ARTEMIS LUNAR OPERATIONS
NOTICE: Amended July 26, 2022. The due date for proposals has
changed: proposals are now due December 6, 2022. This call has
changed in a number of ways: it’s been edited to clarify that
campaigns other than D-RATS may be supported and that this call is
for individuals and does not support multi-person teams. Additional
description and clarifications were added to Section 2.1 Special
Requirements for Proposals, based on feedback from last year’s
review. Section 2.3 was edited to explain that merit scores will be
calculated based on a weighted formula, and that cost will not be
evaluated by the review panel. The numerous changes have not been
tracked, please read the text carefully.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Programmatic Overview
This program addresses NASA's planetary science goal to "ascertain the content,
origin, and evolution of the solar system, and the potential for life elsewhere" by
preparing us to maximize science during the human exploration of planetary bodies.
The focus of this program is on supporting high-fidelity science operations and
operations constraints through analog mission campaigns, including, but not limited to,
Joint Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Test Team (JETT) and Desert Research and
Technology Studies (D-RATS). Funding provided in this year's program element is
intended to enable researchers to participate as science team members in the planning,
execution, and analysis of one or more of these analog mission activities.
Areas of specific interest to the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) include, but are not
limited to:
1. Defining and assessing Science Evaluation Room (SER) team structures for
science activities during human surface missions;
2. Understanding and optimizing human and robotic performance to maximize
scientific return during human surface missions;
3. Developing science requirements for human missions, including requirements for
mobility, navigation, communications, in-situ analysis, surface laboratory
functionality, crew scheduling, and sample acquisition, handling, documentation,
and curation; and
4. Developing surface science scenarios for use in mission architecture planning
and assessing potential science payload manifesting.
1.2 Eligibility
This call is open to researchers at U.S. institutions, including advanced graduate
students. Graduate students should submit proposals as a "Science PI" with their
advisor as the PI. Because of the requirement for access to NASA computer systems
and ITAR sensitive hardware, this call is restricted to U.S. persons only. Proposals that
include teams of more than one person are not in scope for this call. Unless there is a
Science PI, proposals should include only the PI.

C.23-1
1.3 Anticipated Analog Activities
This program supports participation in one or more of NASA's Human Exploration-
sponsored analog activities. The intent of these analog exercises is to provide feedback
and inputs to the design of hardware, software, and operational procedures being
developed for lunar exploration with crew that is supported by a science team in Mission
Control. Awards are expected to cover pre-mission planning/coordinating, researcher
time in the field and/or in Mission Control during the test, associated travel costs, and
time to synthesize the results of the analog activity to provide feedback to NASA in a
timely manner in order to influence ongoing lunar architecture development. These
awards are capped at $30,000 and are for one person, for one year in duration. Awards
are contingent upon occurrence of the analog field campaign activities.
Investigations will be conducted at one or more test campaigns, expected to occur near
SP Crater and/or the Black Point Lava Flow north of Flagstaff, AZ and at Johnson
Space Center in Houston, TX. Preparatory planning will be conducted virtually through
the spring and summer and "dry run" test activities for assessing both hardware
systems and operational procedures readiness may be conducted at the NASA
Johnson Space Center “rock yard” in Houston, TX, during Summer 2023. Dates have
not yet been confirmed for the 2023 tests, but we anticipate they will be conducted in
the September/October time frame.
Most selected participants will be posted at Mission Control in Houston, TX, though
some may be posted in the field at the Arizona test site location, or a combination
thereof, depending on proposer preference and staffing needs.
1.4 Anticipated Support Roles
Selected participants should plan to serve in a support role for the identification and
integration of science objectives into the analog activity plan, support science traverse
planning and execution, as well as staffing and/or advising real-time science evaluation
room (SER) communications activities between analog Science Team operations and
the ongoing activities being conducted by the astronaut/geology crewmembers during
the exercise at the test site. They will work as part of a team to address overarching
strategic questions across a number of different conditions as part of the high fidelity
mission. Selectees may be asked to be members of strategic and/or tactical teams, to
be field observers, field participants, or serve in a combination of multiple roles.
Although selected participants will participate in planning activities, proposers should
not include a science investigation or any hardware for testing in their proposal.
Participants in the analog test(s) will be expected to provide feedback to NASA
regarding concepts of operations with specific relevance to support of science
operations. The primary goal of SMD's participation in these analog exercises is to
investigate and test ways of coordinating science support team members and managing
crewmembers engaged in science field research on the Moon. Work funded through
this solicitation will assist NASA with developing an improved understanding of
numerous system-wide and operational challenges that must be addressed to enable
human and joint human-robotic exploration of the Moon. Topics to be investigated may
include, but are not limited to, crew scheduling for intra- and extra- vehicular activity,
decision-making protocols, traverse planning, sample acquisition and handling,

C.23-2
communications and data flow protocols to support science, navigation unique to
science support, SER design, and support for surface science activities. Of particular
interest are participants with knowledge of developing and utilizing metrics for
evaluating operational tests.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 Special Requirements for Proposals
Proposals must follow the formatting guidelines (fonts, line spacing, margins etc.) in
Section 3.1 of the Planetary Science Research Program Overview (C.1). Any detected
violation of these rules is grounds for the proposal to be rejected without review or
declined following review, with the concurrence of the Selecting Official.
The Science/Technical/Management Sections of proposals are limited to 3 pages.
Proposals must include:
• Description of previous field and/or analog experience, and how that experience
is relevant to this call;
• Area(s) of scientific expertise relevant to scientific operations research;
• Description of previous experience developing or applying evaluative metrics to
operations, as applicable;
• Description of specific skills the proposer has used to work effectively in a
diverse team, (including, but not limited to, communication, the establishment of
clear roles and responsibilities, and inclusion of different perspectives), and how
those skills are relevant to this call;
• A plan for conveying and disseminating results and lessons learned, including
what content should be included, both internal to NASA and to the community;
and
• Description of interest in and motivation for participating in analog tests.
For the discussion of working effectively in a diverse team, proposers should include a
description of their team’s diverse membership (e.g., teams with diverse science
disciplines, technical skill levels, other axes of diversity, including but not limited to
technical background, career stage, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, and
race/ethnicity, and ability/disability) and how that experience applies to this call. For
example, include discussion of barriers team members might face and methods for
overcoming those barriers, or describe a specific instance where the PI had to resolve a
conflict in their work environment.
Successful proposals will describe how the experience(s) listed above relate to the
analog activities described in the call.
In addition to the 3-page S/T/M section the proposal must also include:
• A 2-page CV for the D-RATS participant (either the PI or the Science-PI)
• Detailed budget, including travel. Proposals should assume one one-week trip to
Houston for “dry run” test activities, one two-week trip to Houston to support tests
from Mission Control, and a two-day trip to Flagstaff, AZ for post-test activities.

C.23-3
2.2 Availability of Funding
This program element is supported and managed by the Planetary Sciences Division
within the NASA Science Mission Directorate. A total of $300K has been budgeted for
this program element. The total cost per proposal is capped at $30K for a one-year
award. Dependent on the proposals received, it is expected that approximately 10
awards will be made.
2.3 Evaluation of Proposals
In evaluating proposals to this program element, reviewers will be asked to focus on
these aspects of intrinsic merit, as applicable to the particular proposal:
• The extent that the proposal demonstrates relevant field and/or operational
experience;
• The extent that the proposal demonstrates an ability to work effectively in a
diverse team setting, with specific references to axes of diversity noted above;
and
• The quality and completeness of the plan for conveying and disseminating
results and lessons learned both internal to NASA and to the external
community.
The three evaluation criteria noted above will be weighted for relative importance to the
program: experience will account for 50% of the overall merit evaluation, efficacy in a
diverse team setting will account for 30% of the overall merit evaluation, and the results
dissemination plan will account for 20% of the overall merit evaluation.
Assessments of compliance and responsiveness to the call will be made by NASA staff
and/or NRESS contractors.
2.4 Future Solicitations
It is expected that NASA will repeat this program element in ROSES-2023 at roughly
the same funding level. One objective of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate is to
provide a mechanism for science to play an integral role in the development of
requirements for human exploration through this and other opportunities.
2.5 Selection of Proposals
NASA expects to announce the results of this selection by March 2023. Funding should
be expected no earlier than late April 2023, but could take longer to award. Proposers
should plan accordingly.
2.6 Awards
Approximately 10 proposals will be selected. Awards will be for periods of performance
of one year.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget $0.3 M
for new awards
Number of new awards pending 10
adequate proposals of merit

C.23-4
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Notice of Intent to
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science-Technical-Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
1 year
Not Requested
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Expected April 2023
3 pages
This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-DRATS
Sarah Noble
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-2492
Email: sarah.k.noble@nasa.gov
C.23-5
C.24 MMX PARTICIPATING SCIENTIST PROGRAM
NOTICE: Corrected, June 2, 2022. In Sections 2.4 and 4 the award
durations have been diminished to 6 for Instrument Science and 9
years for Sample Science, corresponding to Table C.24-1. New text is
in bold and deleted text is struck through. The due dates are
unchanged.
Amended May 16, 2022. This Amendment releases final text for this
program element which was previously listed as TBD. Mandatory NOIs
are due June 16, 2022, and proposals are due August 16, 2022.
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-
anonymous review process. See Section 3.3 and the associated
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other
Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
This program requires a Notice of Intent (NOI). Proposals that are not
preceded by the mandatory NOI will be returned without review. No
feedback will be provided in response to the NOI. See Section 3.1.
Important information for proposers, including the Proposal
Information Package (PIP) and a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
list, are provided on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
Questions may be submitted by email to the point of contact identified
in the summary table of key information no later than 30 days before
the proposal deadline. Relevant questions (regardless of frequency)
and answers will be added to the FAQ, which will be revised as needed
in a timely manner.
1. Scope of Program
The Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) mission Participating Scientist Program (MMX-
PSP) will support scientists at U.S. institutions to participate on the MMX mission, which
the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is developing for launch in 2024.
MMX will orbit Mars, visit the Martian moons Phobos (by way of quasi-satellite orbit and
landing) and Deimos (by multiple fly-bys), make close-up remote-sensing and in-situ
observations, and return a sample from Phobos. Prospective proposers are referred to
the Proposal Information Package (PIP) distributed along with this Program Element
Appendix for specific information on the MMX mission, instrumentation, and
management, plus additional information described below. Published papers referenced
and hyperlinked in this document are contained in the PIP, along with other papers that
are not explicitly referenced here but which should be considered of comparable
importance.
1.1 Background Information
Broadly, the MMX mission goals are to constrain the origin of the Martian moons, to
advance understanding of planetary system formation and of primordial material
transport between the inner and the outer early Solar System, and to observe
processes affecting the evolution of the Mars system. A central objective is to ascertain
whether the moons are captured asteroids or the products of a giant impact. Details of

C.24-1
the mission and science objectives are contained in the paper by Kuramoto et al.
(2022), included in the PIP.
Following a launch in 2024 and cruise to Mars, MMX will initially be inserted into Mars
orbit and then transfer to a quasi-satellite orbit around Phobos. Remote-sensing
observations, comprising visible and infrared imaging and spectroscopy, neutron and
gamma-ray spectroscopy, and laser altimetry, and in-situ measurements consisting of
dust detection and ion mass spectroscopy, will be used to characterize the surface,
interior, and environment of Phobos. Surface characterization will enable selection of
one or more landing sites, and a rover will be deployed to the surface at or near one of
the sites. The spacecraft will land twice on Phobos, each time remaining on the surface
for approximately 2.5 hours with the goal of collecting at least 10 grams of regolith
samples. After final ascent from the surface and conclusion of Phobos proximity
operations, MMX will maneuver to a Mars orbit permitting multiple flybys of Deimos. The
same suite of instruments will be used to characterize the surface, interior, and
environment of Deimos. Further observations of Mars, including in-situ observations of
atmospheric ions, will be made throughout the time in Mars orbit to probe the water
cycle and dust interactions in the atmosphere-surface system and to constrain
mechanisms for atmospheric escape. Details of the plans for observations of Phobos
and Deimos and of Mars are contained in the papers by Nakamura et al. (2021) and
Ogohara et al. (2022), included in the PIP. The return spacecraft will then depart Mars
and deliver the collected Phobos samples to Earth for analysis, details of which are
given in the paper by Fujiya et al. (2021), also in the PIP. Total time from launch to
sample recovery on Earth is expected to be approximately five years.
The MMX payload, described in additional papers in the PIP, will comprise a suite of
remote-sensing instruments (imagers, spectrographs, LIDAR, and dust counter), one
deployable rover with its own imagers and spectrometers, the sample acquisition
systems, a remote manipulator (robotic arm), and the sample-return capsule. A NASA-
provided gamma-ray and neutron spectrometer (MEGANE) and sample acquisition
device (P-Sampler) are in development for inclusion in the MMX payload. MEGANE is
described in the paper by Chabot et al. (2021), included in the PIP.
1.2 Solicited Investigations
The MMX-PSP solicits proposals for science investigations to be carried out during the
primary flight and post-flight phases that significantly enhance the overall knowledge
obtained from the MMX mission and that address outstanding questions directly related
to mission objectives.
Two categories of investigations are solicited in this call:
i. Instrument Science. These investigations will analyze and use data from the
MMX instruments – preferably from two or more instruments (see Section 3.8) –
to address questions regarding the Martian moons and/or the Mars system.
ii. Sample Science. These investigations will conduct analytical studies of the
returned Phobos samples to address questions regarding the composition and
origin of the Martian moons and the evolution of the Mars system.
A second MMX-PSP call to support additional Sample Science investigations may be
considered, for issuance not earlier than 2026.

C.24-2
Investigations with goals confined to the interpretation of results from MMX data
analysis or sample analysis, without explicitly conducting such analyses, are not
solicited by this program element. Experimental and/or theoretical work may be in
scope, but only if this work is subordinate to data analysis or sample analysis activities
that are also conducted as part of the investigation. Proposed activities must be
achievable within the baseline MMX mission profile, and must not tangibly increase risk
to the mission. Even through the selected Participating Scientists will, as members of
the MMX Science Working Team (SWT), have some voice in discussions regarding
spacecraft operations, potentially including landing site selection, proposed activities
must not be dependent on any aspect of MMX operations, including trajectory, orbit,
landed operations, communications, data acquisition or sample collection sequences,
that differs from the baseline mission.
General restrictions on funding for mission-related activities are described in Section 3.3
of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview of ROSES-2022. Proposed
activities should enhance and complement, and, to the extent possible, not duplicate,
activities to be carried out by the existing instrument teams. Admittedly, the work plans
of those teams are not finalized, and it is understood that they are likely to evolve as
mission development progresses. Nonetheless, proposals should neither repeat nor
substitute for instrument team activities that can be expected on the basis of materials
included in the PIP.
The MMX-PSP is intended to support the selected investigators’ participation in the
mission, with the large majority of activities taking place during the time from Mars orbit
insertion until departure (for Instrument Science investigations) or until 2 years after the
sample is returned to Earth (for Sample Science investigations). Support for early (pre-
launch) participation in MMX SWT meetings and modest preparatory activities can be
anticipated; however, significant development work will not be supported (see Sections
1.3 and 2.5).
1.3 Exclusions
1.3.1 Peripheral Topics
Investigations focusing on topics or questions not directly connected with MMX mission
objectives in the Mars system are not in the scope of this program, nor are
investigations to do “cruise science” using MMX instruments.
1.3.2 Non-MMX Samples
Proposals to analyze materials other than the samples returned by MMX are not in
scope, unless it is clearly demonstrated that these analyses directly support MMX
sample analysis and that they are necessary for proper interpretation of the results.
1.3.3 Instrumentation and Major Equipment
Requirements for, and restrictions on, requests for major equipment are described in
Section 3.11 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview of ROSES-
2022. This program element is not eligible for supplemental funding for instrumentation
or equipment costing more than $50,000.

C.24-3
1.4 Roles of Proposal Team Members
The MMX science team structure and function are described in the MMX Science
Management Plan, provided in the PIP. All science activities are conducted by the SWT,
which intersects and overlaps with the individual instrument teams (ITs), various
operations working teams (WTs), and thematic Sub-Science Teams (SSTs). The central
unit of the SWT is the International Science Board (ISB), which manages SWT activities
and advises the MMX Project Manager on science issues.
The PI of a selected proposal will join the MMX SWT and relevant IT(s), WT(s), and/or
SST(s) as a Participating Scientist and full member, with commensurate rights in access
to mission data, returned sample, and authorship on publications. In the case that a
selected proposal names a Science PI distinct from the Principal Investigator for
institutional reasons, that individual, not the named Principal Investigator, will join the
MMX SWT (and other relevant teams) as a Participating Scientist; for these proposals,
all further uses of the term "Principal Investigator" mean "Science PI" in this Program
Element Appendix. Proposal Co-Investigators (Co-Is), collaborators, and other team
members will have membership status on the SWT to facilitate their access to data and
authorship on publications directly related to their participation on the PI’s internal team.
Selected Participating Scientists will be directly accountable to NASA, and will be
expected to carry out their activities in harmony with SWT practices, ISB management,
and JAXA oversight.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 Eligibility
Only U.S. institutions may propose to this solicitation. Individuals who are already MMX
SWT members through their membership on a NASA-supported instrument team are
not eligible propose as PI or to have a Co-I role on a proposal, but may be involved as
collaborators.
2.2 Proposal Guidelines
The Principal Investigator is expected to be the primary or sole individual contributing to
the proposed activities, and all proposals should indicate a commensurate level of effort
and commitment by the PI in each project year. Proposals may include Co-Is and/or
collaborators, but only if they are necessary for completing the proposed science
investigation and are working under the supervision of, or in close consultation with, the
PI. Co-Is and collaborators from non-U.S. institutions are permitted. However, foreign
Co-Is are allowed only on a no-exchange-of-funds basis; these individuals must include
letters of endorsement from their government agency or funding/sponsoring institution in
their country (see Table 1 ROSES-2022).
2.3 Sources of Information and Data Used in the Proposal
Information on the MMX mission, scientific payload, and anticipated data can be found
in the PIP.
All data, scientific results, or other information from current or past missions used in the
proposal document must be available in the public domain at least 30 days before the
full proposal deadline. For the purposes of this restriction, the public domain includes

C.24-4
publication in a publicly accessible archive (e.g., Planetary Data System), publication in
a peer reviewed journal, book, or conference proceeding, and posting on the NSPIRES
pages for this program element.
The default requirement on the public availability of spacecraft mission data to be used
in the proposed project (Section 3.5 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
Overview of ROSES-2022) does not apply to the MMX mission data for this program
element; proposed investigations can and should make use of future MMX mission
data.
2.4 Budget, Start Dates, Duration, and Size of Awards
The Planetary Science Division expects to make a single set of selections for this
program starting in FY 2023, with investigations running for up to 7 6 years for
Instrument Science investigations or 10 9 years for Sample Science investigations. The
expected budget for the program is approximately $7.5M total for all program years and
the number of selections is expected to be no more than eight. An approximate,
anticipated program budget profile (subject to availability of funds and programmatic
adjustments) is shown in Table C.24-1. Proposers should plan their project budgets with
these basic parameters in mind, in a way that will support only their basic participation
on the SWT before MMX arrival at Mars, and their full investigations afterward.
Table C.24-1: C.24 MMX-PSP Anticipated Total Program Funding Profile
FY 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

K$ 250 260 820 1400 1400 900 500 1000 1000

Since the NSPIRES cover page budgets can only accommodate 5 years, proposers are
not required to provide NSPIRES cover page budgets, and may ignore any NSPIRES
warnings about the cover page budgets. A redacted budget and justification must be
included in the proposal document in an anonymized format and a full and complete not
anonymized and not redacted budget and justification must be separately uploaded as
the "Total Budget". For more information on budget redaction and the separately
uploaded total budget see Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
and the SARA web page walkthrough on this subject.
Proposals should specify start dates no earlier than March 15, 2023.
2.5 Sample Requirements and Availability
The MMX mission has a Level 1 requirement to obtain at least 10 g of sample from
Phobos, including material from at least 2 cm depth. Because of planetary protection
requirements, the total sample will not exceed 100 g, and will probably be substantially
less.
Analytical protocols expected to be followed are described in the paper by Fujiya et al.
(2021) in the PIP. Following a Preliminary Examination (PE) and production of a
catalog, approximately 10% of the returned sample will be made available to the
Sample Analysis WT for “early science”, in advance of any division and sharing of
sample by international partner agencies for curation and access by the general

C.24-5
community.
Proposers of Sample Science investigations should propose to participate in the PE
and/or “early science” phases; however, any proposed activities must be commensurate
with the amount of sample available and its distribution across the WT.
2.6 Reporting and Funding Increments
After selection, each Participating Scientist shall provide to the MMX Program Scientist
at NASA Headquarters an Implementation Plan with a schedule of key activities and
milestones (such as the production of software, laboratory measurements, data
analysis, results, and publications). All awards will be subject to the reporting
requirements described in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, which include
submission of an annual report to NSSC and copied to the Program Scientist. Release
of incremental funding for subsequent years of the selected investigation will be
contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress against the schedule in the
Implementation Plan.
3. Proposal Preparation, Submission, and Evaluation
3.1 Mandatory Notice of Intent (NOI)
To facilitate the early recruitment of a conflict-free review panel with the necessary
expertise, an NOI will be required for all submissions to this program element.
Proposals that are not preceded by an NOI will be returned without review. The PI may
not be changed after NOI submission and proposers who want to add Co-Is between
the NOI and the proposal submission must inform the point of contact identified in the
summary table of key information at least two weeks in advance of the proposal due
date. Additions of Co-Is within two weeks of the proposal deadline require explicit
permission from the NASA point of contact. Submission of an NOI does not obligate the
proposer to submit a full proposal later.
The Proposal Summary text in the NOI should be anonymized, in the same manner as
the Scientific/Technical/Management section of the full proposal, for dual-anonymous
peer review as described in Section 3.3.
3.2 Proposal Formatting and Content
Proposals must follow all formatting and content requirements that are described in C.1
the Planetary Science Research Program Overview and Section IV(b) of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation. Violation of these rules is sufficient grounds for a
proposal to be rejected or declined. In particular, violation of font, spacing, margin, or
page requirements, or omission of a required component of the proposal, will result in
rejection. Proposers are especially urged to consult Table 1 of ROSES-2022, and to use
that information to ensure that all requirements are met and all required components are
included.
3.3 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members
on the review panel, but the reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal
teams during the scientific evaluation of the proposal. The overarching objective of dual-
C.24-6
anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the scientific
and technical merit of a proposal. See also https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-
anonymous-peer-review.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers; therefore proposers must follow the instructions in the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element that explain how to properly prepare the
proposal for dual-anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Proposal
Team and Program Specific and Business Data, known as the NSPIRES "cover pages",
will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The anonymized
Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal PDF and 2)
proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational) identifying information.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to first evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit,
relevance, and cost reasonableness without taking into account the proposing team
qualifications. Only after the scientific evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel
will be provided with the "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The
panel will use the non- anonymized documents to assess if the qualifications and
capabilities of the proposer(s) are sufficient to execute the proposed investigation.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal Summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first
page of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 8 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
(Scientific/Technical/Ma Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the
nagement section) Data Management Plan.
Biographical Sketches Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document.
Current and Pending Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Support separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document.
Redacted Budget and Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-
Work Effort I#2) in the main proposal document and in non-
anonymized fashion in the separate "Expertise and
Resources – Not Anonymized" document.

C.24-7
 Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed
Equipment only in the separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document. However, the S/T/M Section of
the anonymized proposal should address the need for
and capabilities of facilities and equipment necessary for
the proposed research in an anonymized fashion. Any
unique/identifying descriptions of facilities and evidence
of access to or affiliation with facilities are to be included
in the separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document.
Data Management Plan Include in main proposal document in an anonymized
format. Two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan. (See Section 3.5 for content
guidelines.)
Letters or Statements All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the
separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document
High End Computing Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document
request type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the
main proposal must state that a HEC request is included
and must provide an outline of the computing resources
required in an anonymized fashion.
Separate “Expertise Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
and Resources – Not document provides a list of all team members, their
Anonymized” document institutional affiliations, roles, expertise, and
contributions to the work. The document should also
discuss any specific resources that are key to
completing the proposed work, as well as a summary of
work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support
must also be included. Any existing or prior relationship
with the MMX project or teams shall be described in this
section. Letters of support, e.g., from facilities or
archives, must be included in this section.
3.4 Program-Specific Proposal Content
3.4.1 Scientific/Technical/Management section
In addition to the content described in Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation, the Scientific/Technical/Management (STM) section must:
i. Demonstrate explicitly that the scientific goals are achievable using MMX mission
data and/or returned samples;
ii. Fully describe the resources required from the mission in order to accomplish the
work;
iii. Identify the Sub-Science Teams, Instrument Teams, and/or other units within the
MMX Science Working Team that the proposing PI would join if selected;
iv. Explain how the proposed work complements, without duplicating, work that will
C.24-8
 be done by the existing teams;
v. Justify why the proposed work should be done (for Instrument Science
investigations) during the primary flight phase or (for Sample Analysis
investigations) during the preliminary examination and/or early science phases,
as opposed to later, using archived data or community access to samples;
vi. Present a work plan that includes a proposed schedule and milestones, and
explains how they fit within the mission timeline.
Proposal work plans, schedules, and budgets must allow PIs to attend all relevant team
meetings during the period of performance, in person when feasible but by remote
means if necessary.
Failure to explicitly address the above items will negatively affect the proposal’s
evaluation and decrease the likelihood of selection.
3.4.2 Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized document
The “Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized” document, in addition to the required
content listed in Section 3.3, must:
i. Describe the particular expertise and/or perspective (not necessarily limited to
scientific perspective) that the proposing PI would bring to the MMX Science
Working Team if selected;
ii. Demonstrate the proposing PI’s capacity for contributing productively to a highly
international, Japan-led team.
Failure to explicitly address the above items will decrease the likelihood of selection.
3.5 Data Management Plans
All data gathered by proposals selected in this program element will be considered
MMX mission data, and therefore must be archived in accordance with NASA policies
on mission data. Basically, all scientific data shall be archived within and made publicly
available through the NASA Planetary Data System (PDS) as soon as practicable and
consistent with good scientific practice, but no later than six months after receipt on
ground. NASA and JAXA are developing a Joint Data Management and Access Plan
(JDMAP) covering the details of this process for MMX.
Because the JDMAP is in development by the agencies, proposals to this program
element must include a provisional Data Management Plan (DMP) that describes how
the proposers anticipate that data products produced by the funded investigation will be
made publicly available, following the guidelines described in Section 3.7 ("Data
Management Plans and Archiving") of C.1 The Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, but with the understanding that the DMP may need to be revised later for
consistency with the JDMAP. The provisional DMP must be placed in a special section,
not to exceed two pages in length, immediately following the References and Citations
section for the Scientific/Technical/Management portion of the proposal. The provisional
DMP does not need to cover archiving of spacecraft data returned by the mission, which
will be covered by the JDMAP; however, it must cover new data and software products
that would be generated via the proposal, including those derived from spacecraft data.

C.24-9
Proposed data products for delivery to the PDS should be clearly described, and
appropriate time and effort for delivery and ingestion should be budgeted. Supporting
letters from the appropriate PDS node(s) are not required in the proposal. If, following
review, the proposal is considered selectable for funding, the proposers will then be
required to obtain a letter from the manager(s) of the PDS Node(s) and sent directly to
the MMX Program Scientist before the project can be funded. For additional information,
refer to https://pds.nasa.gov/home/proposers/proposing-programs.shtml, the PDS
Proposer's Archiving guide. Data products, including maps, improved calibrations, etc.,
must be submitted to the PDS or the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as appropriate,
by the end of the funded research period, unless the investigator explicitly makes a
case in the proposal for a later date.
3.6 Evaluation Criteria
All proposals with be evaluated for Intrinsic Merit, Cost, and Relevance, as defined in
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and described in Section V.(a) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation and C.1 The Planetary Science Research Program Overview.
Proposals will be additionally evaluated on how well they address the program-specific
content requirements in Section 3.4.1 above.
3.7 JAXA Observers
NASA may invite observers from JAXA affiliated with the MMX project to be present at
the proposal review, and redacted copies of submitted proposals may be shared with
JAXA. Thus, proposers are reminded that they must clearly identify all instances of
export controlled (e.g., ITAR) material in proposals. For more information see Export-
Controlled Material in Proposals in Appendix A on page 32 of the 2022 NASA
guidebook for proposers. Observers will not participate in the panel deliberation process
or contribute to the evaluation of individual proposals. Observers may provide
comments to NASA during or after the review.
3.8 Selection Process
While a scientifically meritorious proposal will remain a necessary and primary condition
for selection, selection decisions may also take into account programmatic factors,
which include:
• For Instrument Science investigations, preference will be given to proposals that
take an interdisciplinary approach and use data from multiple MMX instruments
to address their science goals.
• Distribution of responsibility across the proposal team; while Co-Is and other
members are allowed, it is expected that the PI will execute the majority, if not all,
of the proposed work effort.
• Program-specific content described in Section 3.4.2 above;
• Comments from JAXA may also be taken into consideration.

C.24-10
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first year
of new awards
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for mandatory NOIs
Due date for Step-2 proposals
Planning date for start of investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management section
of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the submission
of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposals
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
C.24-11
~$0.25M, See Section 2.4.
6–8
7 6 years for Instrument Science
10 9 years for Sample Science
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
No earlier than March 15, 2023
8 pages. One additional page is allotted for
the Proposal Summary, and two additional
pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
This program is relevant to the Planetary
Science questions and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant
to this program are, by definition, relevant
to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
Program Overview, and Section IV and
Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-MMXPSP
Point of contact concerning this
program
Thomas S. Statler
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: thomas.s.statler@nasa.gov
Telephone: (202) 358-0272

C.24-12
C.25 ARTEMIS III GEOLOGY TEAM
NOTICE: Amended January 24, 2023. This amendment releases the
final text and due dates for this program element, which was
previously released as draft for community comment. This program
element solicits proposals via the two-step proposal submission
process described in Section 2 of C.1 The Planetary Science Division
Research Program Overview. Step-1 proposals are due February 24,
2023, and Step-2 proposals are due April 25, 2023.
Significant changes from the draft include:
• Section 1.2: Further information about access to NASA IT and
physical space has been added.
• The landing site for the purposes of the Artemis III Geology EVA
Planning Exercise is now included (Section 2.1).
• The requirement for traverses to be illuminated has been
removed (Section 3.2.1.1).
• Traceability of proposed scientific objectives for the Artemis III
Geology EVA Planning Exercise may now use NASA’s Moon to
Mars Objectives, as well as other community documents
specifically listed in Section 3.2.1.2.
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated in part (see
Section 4) using a dual-anonymous review process. Proposals must
be prepared according to the guidelines in Section 3.7 and in the
associated "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" under "Other
Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Background Information
This program solicits proposals for the complete Artemis III Geology Team (A3GT),
which will support Artemis III (AIII) mission operations and will function as part of the
Science Evaluation Room (SER), or the science backroom, for the mission. Each
proposal must include an entire team; proposals for specific individuals are not solicited
and, if received, will be returned without review. A single team will be selected from this
call. This mission will be the first crewed landing to the south polar region of the Moon
and is currently scheduled for a December 2025 launch. Members of the selected A3GT
will be part of the broader Artemis Science Team, which consists of the Artemis Internal
Science Team, the A3GT (this program element), teams selected from the Artemis
Deployed Instruments call (F.12), and participating scientists selected from a future
Artemis III Participating Scientist Program call.
The A3GT will participate, along with the rest of the broader Artemis Science Team, in
the definition of scientific objectives to be addressed by the Artemis III mission, the
design and execution of the surface campaign to satisfy those objectives, and the
evaluation of the data returned by the mission, including preliminary examination of
returned samples. Activities that are expected to occur during the surface campaign
include science activities inside and outside the lander - Intravehicular Activity (IVA) and

C.25-1
Extravehicular Activity (EVA), respectively - such as field geology traverses, in situ
observations, and acquisition of scientific data, such as imagery, samples, and scientific
measurements; the A3GT will only participate in planning EVA activities. The A3GT will
contribute to support of real-time mission operations, the collection and assessment of
scientific data and mission-relevant information. After the AIII surface mission is
completed, members of the A3GT will help produce AIII preliminary geology mission
and science reports. Members of the A3GT with relevant experience will participate in
the preliminary examination of samples at the direction of Astromaterials Curation at the
Johnson Space Center, an activity that will culminate in the publication of a catalog, or
catalogs, of collected samples. Once the preliminary geology report and preliminary
examination catalog are published, A3GT members will be able to request samples
from the mission for further research coincident with the rest of the scientific community
as detailed in Section 2.5 in the Proposal Information Package (PIP).
1.2 Eligibility (Including Foreign Participation)
Other than the People’s Republic of China, see Section III.c of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation, individuals affiliated with non-U.S. institutions may be team members on
proposals submitted to this call; proposals from PIs at non-U.S. institutions are not
solicited at this time. Co-Is from foreign institutions shall only be on a no-exchange-of-
funds basis. As such, proposals with team members from non-U.S. institutions must
include a letter of commitment from each non-U.S. institution guaranteeing financial
support for all proposed activities upon selection. These letters must be included in the
separate Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized document, as detailed in Section
3.3.
Access to facilities or property, or to Information Technology (IT) systems or
applications, is contingent upon compliance with NASA’s security and safety policies
and guidelines including, but not limited to, standards on badging, credentials, and
facility and IT system application/access.
1.3 Solicited Work
Proposals to this solicitation will consist of several components: an Artemis III Geology
EVA Planning Exercise section (Section 3.2.1), a plan for contributing to preliminary
examination of collected samples (Section 3.2.2), a plan for preliminary mission and
science reports (Section 3.2.3.), and a Team section composed of a Team
Collaboration and Management Plan and a Code of Conduct (Section 3.2.4). The
material for Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3, which comprise the Science/Technical
(S/T) section, must be anonymized following the guidelines in Section 3.3. Section 3.2.4
need not be anonymized and will be placed in the Expertise and Resources document,
along with other information required (see Table C.25-4). The Artemis III Geology EVA
Planning Exercise shall produce an example mission plan that would satisfy a set of
hypothetical assumptions and engineering constraints detailed in Section 3.2.1.1, while
addressing the mission science goals defined by the proposing team.

C.25-2
2. Programmatic information
2.1 Sources of Information and Data Used in the Proposal
For the purposes of the Artemis III Geology EVA Planning Exercise, we encourage
proposal teams to use image and topography data generated by the LROC team. The
Artemis III Geology EVA Planning Exercise site, Malapert Massif, has a 2 meter per
pixel (mpp) Digital Terrain Model (DTM) developed by the LROC team at
https://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_rdr/NAC_DTM_ESALL_MP1, which includes a DTM,
a derived slope map, and a 1 mpp mosaic of the region. Should teams use additional
datasets in the development of their Artemis III Geology EVA Plan, such data should be
explicitly cited. The standard rule for use of mission data applies; unless otherwise
specified, spacecraft mission data to be used in the proposed work must be available in
the Planetary Data System (PDS), or an equivalent, publicly accessible, archive, at least
30 days prior to the full proposal due date. Datasets relevant to the defined science
questions should be incorporated into traverse plans and details regarding the type,
which instrument(s) collected the data, its resolution, and relevant citation(s) etc. must
be included in the body of the proposal.
2.2 Required Proposal Roles
A PI and a Deputy PI (DPI) must be identified, and their roles described within the
proposal text (consistent with DAPR, see Section 3.7) and indicated in the Summary
Table of Personnel and Work Effort. An anonymized version of the Summary Table of
Personnel and Work Effort shall come before the Artemis III Geology EVA Planning
Exercise and a non-anonymized version shall be included in the Expertise and
Resources document, where the PI and DPI must be named. NASA strongly
encourages the proposing team to identify an early career (<10 years post-terminal
degree) individual in a leadership (i.e., PI or DPI) role. Proposals shall clearly define
roles and responsibilities for the PI and DPI appropriate for those positions.
3. Proposal Preparation and Submission
3.1 Two Step Proposal Submission Process
This program element uses the two-step proposal submission process described in C.1,
The Planetary Science Division Research Program Overview, Section 2. Step-1
proposals are mandatory and must be submitted by the proposing organization. Step-1
proposals must contain a brief proposal summary and all team members listed on the
Step-1 proposal must confirm their roles and participation via NSPIRES; no other
information is required. Excessively large teams of Co-Investigators and Collaborators
are strongly discouraged.
Step-2 proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in C.1 and
Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Violation of these rules is
sufficient grounds for a proposal to be rejected.
The PI may be changed up to 30 days prior to the Step-2 proposal date; change of the
PI requires explicit permission from the NASA point(s) of contact. The PI cannot be
changed less than 30 days prior to the Step-2 deadline. Other Team members may be
added, or their roles changed, up to 14 days prior to the Step-2 proposal due date.

C.25-3
Proposers who want to add funded investigators between the Step-1 and Step-2
proposals must inform the NASA point(s) of contact identified in the summary table of
key information (Section 6.0) at least 14 days before the Step-2 deadline. Additions of
funded investigators within two weeks of the Step-2 deadline require explicit permission
from the NASA point(s) of contact. Removal of funded or unfunded Team members
between Step-1 and Step-2 submissions does not require approval.
3.2 Proposal Formatting and Content
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in C.1 and Section
IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. See C.1 for a discussion of the
consequences of non-compliance.
All proposals are to include the following materials in this order and using the titles as
given. Additional details for each item, where necessary, are given in the same order in
Section 3.2.1 below.
Table C.25-1. Page length guidelines. Include sections in the order shown.
PROPOSAL ELEMENT PAGE LIMIT‡
Proposal Cover Page/Proposal Summary As needed per NSPIRES Proposal
Anonymized proposal file
Title Page* 1
Table of Contents* 1
Summary Table of Personnel and Work As needed
Effort*+
Science/Technical Section* 15
Science Traceability Matrix* As needed
References As needed
Data Management Plan* 2
Redacted Budget Narrative and Details* As needed
Other components, not anonymized†
Team Collaboration and Management Plan† 7
Code of Conduct† 1
†
Facilities and Equipment (as appropriate) 5
†
PI, DPI Curriculum Vitae 2 each
Curriculum Vitae for each Co-I† 1
†
Current and Pending Support As needed
Statement(s) of Commitment from Co-Is and As needed
Collaborators §†

Letter(s) of Support from Other Contributing As needed

†
Institutions
Total Budget file† As needed
*anonymized
+a non-anonymized version is also required; see Table C.25-4.
‡
including illustrations, tables, and figures.
§only for proposals submitted via Grants.gov; this requirement is met within NSPIRES

via the Team member confirmation process.

C.25-4
†submitted as two separate PDF files; the Total Budget file should be one document
and all other materials in this section should be combined into a second document
(Expertise and Resources, see Table C.25-4).
3.2.1 Artemis III Geology EVA Planning Exercise
3.2.1.1 Artemis III Geology EVA Planning Exercise Assumptions
The Artemis III Geology EVA Planning Exercise is based on the hypothetical
assumptions and constraints provided below. Note that these assumptions are for the
purposes of this solicitation only and do not indicate actual requirements or capabilities
of the Artemis III mission. These planning assumptions are:
• Number of EV crew: Two crew with appropriate training in geology, EVA
hardware and operations, traverse objectives, and mission systems to complete
all mission objectives.
• Landing area for purposes of the EVA exercise only: the vicinity of Malapert
Massif. The coordinates of the landing site and a context image of the site are
provided in the Proposal Information Package (PIP).
• Maximum radial distance from lander: Crew may traverse up to 2 km radially
from the lander; cumulative traverse distances may be longer, so long as it fits
within the total EVA time allocation.
• Trafficability of surface: traverses must avoid slopes > 20 degrees. Other
trafficability variables (e.g., boulder concentration) are not constraints for the
purposes of this exercise.
• EVA time available for science activities, distributed between three total EVAs:
two 3-hour EVAs and one 6-hour EVA
• Astronaut walking speed: up to 2 km/hr
• Mass allocation for lunar delivery: 100 kg for tools and sample containers. Tool
list, including sample containers, and notional masses are provided in the PIP.
• Mass allocation for return to Earth: a total of 100 kg is allocated for return of all
samples, inclusive of sample container mass.
The assumptions mentioned above are the only constraints to be considered for this
exercise. Other variables such as navigational constraints or communication coverage
are outside the scope of this solicitation.
3.2.1.2 Artemis III Geology EVA Planning Exercise Requirements
An example of an EVA traverse description from Apollo 17 has been included in the
“Other Documents” section of the webpage for this call for reference only. Only the
relevant pages have been included.
Using the Artemis III Geology EVA Planning Exercise assumptions provided above,
proposals must define an Artemis III Geology EVA Plan that contains the following
information in narrative form:
• Science objectives: Define science goals and objectives that would be addressed
at the prescribed landing area and demonstrate their importance to the science
community through citations of peer-reviewed publications and by tracing
objectives to the Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary

C.25-5
 Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032 report, the science objectives delineated in
NASA’s Moon to Mars Objectives, and those discussed in the Artemis III Science
Definition Team Report.
• Science activities: Describe the Team’s approach to fulfilling the defined science
objectives using the resources available, including field geology tools and
observations and sample collection and preliminary examination. The approach
should be based on a set of notional EVA activities with crew to collect
observations, images, samples, and other scientific data as defined by the
proposal team. These activities should be prescribed to the three EVAs; a plan
should be made for utilization for all three EVAs for the purposes of this exercise.
The plan should prioritize the activities and map them to specific tasks for crew,
such as site descriptions, specific imagery, the time and amount of sample to be
collected, or additional crew actions (as necessary).
• Science activity prioritization: In addition to a numerical prioritization of the
identified science activities, describe the rationale for the prioritization of the
activity and the method or characteristics used to perform the prioritization,
specifically with reference to the Science Traceability Matrix (STM) (see below).
Also describe how activities would be tactically evaluated and dropped or added
in real time, responding to circumstances on the ground.
• Tool choice: A narrative justification for why particular tools were chosen, relating
the use case to how they would be used on the Moon.
The following tables and figures must also be included in this section:
• Science Traceability Matrix (STM): State the goal(s), the objective(s) under each
goal, required field observations at each science activity location, the data and/or
type and amount (mass, number) of samples to be collected (if any) to address
that objective, and the location on the landing area map. Template provided in
Table C.25-2.
• Tools: Identify, in list form, which tools (and their total mass) would be sent to the
Moon for use by crew, along with the total tool mass. Use masses as provided in
the PIP. Total tool mass must not exceed the total mass allocation for lunar
delivery for science provided in Section 3.2.1.1.
• Mass of samples by type: Provide, in table form, a list of the sample types (e.g.,
regolith, core, hand sample), their priority, and the total mass of each sample
type proposed to be collected and returned. Total sample return mass (inclusive
of sample containers) must not exceed the total return mass for science provided
in Section 3.2.1.1.
• Science activity identification number and coordinates: The Science Activity
Identification table. Science activities may include stations, sample sites,
scientific observations, or other activities as defined and described by the
proposal team. Provide, in table form, a list of science activity identification
numbers, associated coordinates, priority, and which science objective(s) are
achieved or addressed by each activity, for reference in the Map of Landing Area
figure and the STM. Activities may be grouped together at specific locations (e.g.,
a station), but each proposed activity should be justified and prioritized
independently. Template provided in Table C.25-3.

C.25-6
 • Map of landing area, indicating traverses and science activities: Provide a map
(to fit on an 8.5x11” sheet of paper) of the landing area using LRO LROC NAC
imagery as the basemap; basemap is provided in the PIP or can be found online
at https://bit.ly/3zUxjM1. The landing site for this exercise is within a 2 km radius
from a point centered on latitude: -85.964º, longitude: 357.681º. Indicate the
science activities on this map and number them, as defined in the Science
Activity Identification table. Exact traverse paths need not be mapped; linear
paths will suffice to provide insight into how the entire EVA would evolve. The
most distant activity for a particular traverse/EVA must be no more than 2 km
(linear distance) from the lander. Traverses will avoid slopes greater than 20. If
activities are grouped at locations (e.g., stations), then these can be shown as a
single point or perimeter.
• Note that time required for crew deployment of scientific payloads or other non-
science activities (such as planting the flag, calling the President, suit checkout,
etc.), need not be accounted for when constructing the EVA plans for this
exercise.
The final landing site for Artemis III has not been selected. Thus, it is important for the
team to demonstrate flexibility with respect to EVA planning. Therefore, in addition to
the narrative describing the plan for Malapert Massif, describe how the proposed
science objectives and prioritization would differ at different potential landing regions.
The 13 Candidate Regions can be found in Moon Trek and in QuickMap. It is not
necessary to provide detailed plans for all 13 Candidate Regions, but rather describe
your strategy for how the proposed EVA plan would change should the landing site
change after initial selection closer to the actual Artemis III launch.
Table C.25-2 Science Traceability Matrix Template
Science Goal A:
Objectives Field Sample Collection Station # Priority
a
Observations Type(s) for Instructions
Collection
A1:
AX:
Science Goal B:
Objectives Field Sample Collection Station # Priority
Observations Type(s) for Instructionsa
Collection
B1:
BX:
aCollection instructions include e.g., trenching to X cm depth or requires Y time to

acquire data. Priority refers to the priority of the science objective listed.
Table C.25-3 Science Activity Table Template
Activity identification # Coordinates Priority Science objective(s)
addressed

C.25-7
 3.2.2 Plan for Contributing to Preliminary Examination of Collected Samples
Once samples are received at the lunar curation facility, the Artemis Curator will devise
a plan for preliminary examination of samples similar to the notional plan described in
the PIP. In an anonymized fashion, identify team members that will participate in
preliminary examination activities and describe their qualifications. Also, identify and
justify any additional types of descriptive, compositional, and/or petrographic analyses
that could contribute to and enhance the currently planned preliminary examination. The
Preliminary Examination Catalog(s) must be completed to be released to the public as
quickly as feasible and no more than six months after samples are received in the
curation facility.
3.2.3 Plan for Preliminary Mission and Science Reports
The A3GT is expected to produce two reports after the completion of the mission. The
first, the Preliminary Geology Mission Report, is expected to include, at a minimum,
detailed descriptions of the mission, including landing site characterization, traverses,
sample locations, and associated crew notes. In an anonymized fashion, identify and
justify team member(s) that will lead this effort and identify any additional content that
the Team would include in this report. The Preliminary Geology Mission Report is
expected to be released to the public no more than six months after completion of the
mission.
The second report, the Preliminary Geology Science Report, is expected to include, at a
minimum, initial interpretations that synthesize data from the preliminary examination of
returned samples with the details included in the Preliminary Geology Mission Report. In
an anonymized fashion, identify and justify team member(s) that will lead this effort and
identify any additional content that the Team would include in this report. The
Preliminary Geology Science Report is expected to be released to the public
approximately 12 months after completion of the mission.
3.2.4 Team Collaboration and Management Plan and Code of Conduct
The Team Collaboration and Management Plan and Code of Conduct sections define
the management structure and expected behaviors that are required to ensure a
collaborative and effective Artemis Science Team. Teamwork is a core component of
human spaceflight and is an essential building block to enable mission success,
especially given the dynamic and changing nature of Artemis. Effective teamwork
requires that each team member be inclusive of others and interact openly and
dynamically toward an effectual synchronized output, rather than providing individual or
aggregated responses. Successful teams must demonstrate that they are adaptive and
flexible to the changing environment and welcoming of alternate views and perspectives
from personnel external to their organization and experience base. Team leads and
team members must show respect and trust within the team and with outside groups,
enable task interdependencies, and ensure open coordination among members.
Science operations in the Artemis era requires a multi-disciplinary approach and
understanding that talent and expertise from several non-science external organizations
will be needed to ensure mission success. This cross-discipline environment requires
positive engagement with engineers, managers, logistics experts, technicians, and

C.25-8
scientists, working together across all phases of the mission (e.g., planning, training,
execution, and post-mission). Inclusion and respect are required skills that a successful
Artemis III geology proposal team must clearly demonstrate. Therefore, a non-
anonymized narrative describing aspects of teamwork, described below, is required to
be included in the Expertise and Resources document for this call.
The Team Collaboration and Management Plan shall:
• Describe the team structure and composition, including anticipated roles, duties,
and knowledge/skills/expertise of each team member relevant to assigned tasks,
and the task interdependency between team members.
• Describe the PI’s views on leadership and teamwork and the obligations of
leaders, using specific examples from the PI’s experience and how those may be
applied to views and experiences of this Team.
o Describe how the PI’s past experiences (both positive and negative) on teams
have influenced their team leadership style.
o Describe how the PI develops trust and will ensure open and inclusive
communications and decision-making processes with all team members.
o Describe the PI's interaction with and responsibility to the DPI and how the
DPI role will be leveraged as deputy team lead.
• Using specific examples, describe the PI’s experience in non-leadership (team
member) roles on teams, how the PI may apply those experiences to this Team,
and the PI’s views on what makes an effective team member.
• Describe how recognizing power structures and team dynamics inform how this
Team would operate effectively.
• Explain how the Team will adapt and be flexible to changing inputs and priorities
and how they will manage the time pressures and responsibilities associated with
mission operations.
• Describe how the Proposal Team expects to interface and coordinate with
Artemis Science Team personnel outside of those on the proposing team, e.g.,
the Artemis Internal Science Team, Participating Scientists, Deployed Instrument
Teams, Johnson Space Center Curation Office, Artemis Mission Management,
Flight Operations Division, and mission systems personnel, etc.
o Successful Artemis science will require proactive and continuous dialog with
external organizations. Science, engineering development, and operations
are tightly inter-woven, and each piece is needed for everyone to be
successful. Describe how the Team acknowledges this and will
respect/implement it.
• The selected Team will help define the Artemis III “Rules of the Road.” Describe
the Team’s views on how publication rights and authorship would be decided,
both internal to this Proposal Team and including members from the broader
Artemis Science Team.
In addition to this narrative, each proposal must contain a separate Code of Conduct.
The Code of Conduct must include:
• A description of Team norms, i.e., important aspects of interpersonal and Team
interaction, such as communication, inclusiveness, mutual respect, and conflict

C.25-9
 resolution. Also include a description of how the will team work together to
address these critical norms.
• Descriptions of acceptable versus unacceptable behaviors and what to do if a
Team member experiences or witnesses one or some of these behaviors. Note
that unacceptable behaviors can be very broad and that not everyone may
identify, acknowledge, or even understand them in the same way. There can be
more subtle micro-aggression behaviors, like constantly interrupting a colleague
and undermining them, or aggressive physical harassment and intimidation. It is
important to recognize that there is a spectrum, as well as how to educate your
team and mitigate issues. This starts with establishing clear guidelines to your
team right up front.
o Discuss how acceptable vs. unacceptable behaviors will be communicated to
the Team.
o Discuss how unacceptable team behaviors would be identified.
o Discuss how offenses would be reported (for individual Team institutions),
who they would be reported to, and how they would be addressed.
o Discuss the potential consequences of exhibiting unacceptable behaviors.
Examples of Codes of Conduct for Teams or what could be included in a Code of
Conduct can be found here: Project Include and The NEID Spectrograph.
3.3 Data and Management Plan
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(see Section 3.7 of C.1) for the Artemis III Geology EVA Planning Exercise. This must
be placed in a special section, no longer than two pages in length, that immediately
follows the References.
3.4 Required Travel
The A3GT will be required to complete training activities to gain an understanding of the
structure and procedures of Mission Control during the Artemis III mission and
principles of human spaceflight, briefings and familiarization sessions on relevant
hardware and software used by both crew and ground teams, tours of relevant NASA
facilities, and more. These training activities will also include preparatory work for and
actual simulations of real-time crewed lunar surface missions, which will include both
the entire Artemis Science Team and components of other ground control teams.
Multiple in-person training activities for relevant Team members must be included in the
proposal budget. Proposals will be evaluated based on, in part, whether all required
trips are included, in addition to any other reasonable and realistic travel proposed.
For Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) training and simulation support:
• L-24 months to L-12 months: 3 1-week trips to Houston (Team members
supporting ops only) and 1 week-long trip to the field.
• L-12 months to before mission start: 4 1-week trips to Houston (Team members
supporting ops only) and 1 week-long trip to the field.
The actual field location is yet to be determined, but for the purpose of this call, use
Flagstaff, AZ to calculate the cost of travel for the field work.

C.25-10
In addition, 1 full team trip per year (L-24 to L-12 and L-12 to Launch) should also be
budgeted for.
Assume 1 2-week period in Houston for the entire selected A3GT for pre-launch, main
operations, and post-launch activities.
The PI and DPI should plan for one extra 1-week long trip to Houston for every year
during the period of performance.
The subset of the team who will perform preliminary examination of returned samples
will also be required to travel for additional training and post-mission activities.
For Preliminary Examination Activities:
• L-24 months to L-6 months for preliminary examination training and rehearsal(s)
o 2 1-week trips to Houston
• L+0 to L+6 months to perform preliminary examination of returned samples
o A total of 13 weeks in Houston per preliminary examination Team Member
3.5 Relevance
Proposals to this program element do not require a separate or explicit statement of
relevance. As stated in program element C.1, Section 3.6, all proposals, including those
submitted to this program element, will be evaluated for relevance to the program
element. Consequently, proposers are strongly encouraged to address the question of
relevance in the Scientific/Technical portion of the proposal.
3.6 Letter(s) of Support from International Co-I Institutions
International Co-Is (those providing critical expertise and/or capabilities) must include a
letter in the Expertise and Resources document from their home institution
demonstrating financial support for their participation.
3.7 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Step-1 Proposals need not be anonymized. Step-2 Proposals submitted to this program
will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer review (DAPR) process in which not
only are proposers unaware of the identity of the reviewers, the reviewers are not told
the identity of the proposers until after the evaluation of the anonymized proposal (see
below). The objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to minimize bias in the
evaluation of the merit of a proposal.
Proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element
that explains how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will be partly hidden for the peer reviewers. The Proposal Summary must
be anonymized but all other sections of the NSPIRES cover page should be completed
as normal and NSPIRES will hide the identifying information from the reviewers. The
proposal document must be anonymized, and proposers must upload a separate
"Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document, that contains all of the
personally (and organizational) identifying information.

C.25-11
Review panels will be instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals, without taking
into account the qualifications and capabilities of the proposers. After the evaluation of
the anonymized proposal has been finalized for all proposals, panelists will be provided
with the "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" documents for the top-rated
proposals in their panel. The panel will then assess the qualifications and capabilities of
the team for these proposals and provide comments to NASA.
A summary of changes to key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from
the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Table C.25-4. Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Proposal Preparation
Item Requirement
Proposal Document In addition to anonymizing the content, ensure that any PDF
PDF file bookmarks are anonymous, and the document properties do
not reveal names of author or organization.
Science/Technical- The S/T section must be anonymized. Omit all names of team
(S/T) section of members and names of their organizations.
proposal
Team Collaboration Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
and Management “Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized” document.
Plan
Science Must be anonymized, see Table C.25-2.
Traceability Matrix
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
DMP Must be anonymized, See Section 3.3
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document.
Table of Personnel Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
and Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Code of Conduct Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
“Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized” document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities

C.25-12
 are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources
Not Anonymized" document.
Separate Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
"Expertise and Attachment Type = "Expertise and Resources Not
Resources Not Anonymized". This document provides a list of all team
Anonymized" members, their roles, institutional affiliations, expertise, and
document contributions to the work. The document should also discuss
any specific resources that are key to completing the proposed
work, as well as a summary of work effort. Statements of
Current and Pending Support must also be included.
Total Budget Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
Attachment Type = Total Budget. The mandatory total budget
file is full and complete with all costs for those at U.S.
organizations, including those at government laboratories. It is
not redacted or anonymized.
High-End Submit optional not-anonymized PDF HEC form as attachment
Computing (HEC) type "Optional HEC request" in NSPIRES. The S/T section in
request the main proposal must state that a HEC request is included
and must provide an outline of the computing resources
required in an anonymized fashion.

3.8 List of Relevant "Other Documents"

The following files will be posted under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for
this program element:
o Proposal Information Package (PIP)
▪ Roles of internal science team members
▪ Context image and landing ellipse for Malapert Massif region
▪ Descriptions and masses for tools and sample containers
o Example of an EVA traverse description from Apollo 17
o Guidelines for Proposers to ROSES Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Programs
o Science Traceability Matrix Template
o Science Activity Table Template
4. Evaluation Criteria
All Step-2 proposals will be evaluated for Intrinsic Merit, Cost, and Relevance, as
defined in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and implemented as described in Section
V of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, except where described below. Proposals will
additionally be evaluated on how well they address the following program-specific
content requirements. Intrinsic Merit will be based on evaluation of the Planning
Exercise, the Plan for Preliminary Examination, and the Team collaboration and
Management Plan and Code of Conduct, with the Planning Exercise most heavily
weighted, as described below.

C.25-13
4.1 Merit of the Artemis III Geology EVA Planning Exercise
This section also includes assessment of the Data Management Plan. This section will
be evaluated under Dual Anonymous Peer Review.
This factor will be assessed based on the following considerations:
• Whether the proposed science objectives are appropriate for the Artemis III
Geology EVA Planning Exercise landing site and of high priority to the science
community, as demonstrated in the proposal through tracing proposed objectives
to the Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal and the Artemis III Science
Definition Team Reports; the extent to which this traceability was clearly
demonstrated in the proposal.
• How well the proposal demonstrates an awareness that the Artemis III mission is
bigger than just one science team and that science objectives and acquired
samples will be a community resource for decades to come.
• Whether the proposed Geology EVA Plan is compliant with the mission
parameters provided, e.g., downmass and return mass are within constraints,
tools and sample containers are on provided reference lists, science activities for
the three EVAs are feasible within the provided constraints.
• How well the proposed data that would be collected during the proposed science
activities, as demonstrated in a complete STM and justified with rationale in the
proposal (e.g., identified and prioritized science stations, tools, crew
observations, photographs, diversity of acquired samples, etc.) is able to address
the science objectives, as defined in the proposal.
• How well the proposal demonstrates awareness of mission complexity and
flexibility in mission planning, by describing applicability of science objectives to
other landing sites, describing how trades were made to adjust prioritization of
science objectives and mission tasks for different landing sites, and identifying
appropriate plans for accommodating real time changes in mission plans.
• The quality of the DMP is assessed as part of the evaluation of intrinsic merit
(Section 3.7 of C.1) and whether the DMP is appropriate for the data to be
acquired in the execution of the proposed Geology EVA Plan.
4.2 Merit of the Plan to Contribute to Preliminary Examination of Samples
This section will be evaluated under Dual Anonymous Peer Review. This factor will be
assessed based on the following consideration:
• How well the proposal demonstrates that members of the team who would
participate in the preliminary examination of Artemis III samples have the
requisite expertise in the techniques outlined in the PIP as part of the preliminary
examination process, as well as in any new techniques proposed to be added to
the preliminary examination process.
4.3 Merit of the Team Collaboration and Management Plan and Code of Conduct
After the DAPR evaluation of the Artemis III Geology EVA Planning Exercise, the
sections that follow will be evaluated by the review panel for proposals with top-rated
merit scores. The review of these sections will include evaluating team member
expertise and other materials provided in the “Expertise and Resources” document

C.25-14
submitted with the proposal. Findings regarding the panel’s assessment of the Team
Collaboration and Management Plan and Code of Conduct will be provided in a
separate evaluation form based on the factors provided below.
4.3.1 Team Collaboration and Management Plan
This section will be assessed based on the following factors:
• How well the proposal clearly described the composition of the team (i.e.,
knowledge/skills/expertise of each team member), the team structure (i.e.,
management structure and anticipated roles and duties), and task
interdependency between team members.
• How well the team leadership demonstrated experience in effectively working in
teams in non-leadership roles as well as in leadership roles and how those
experiences would be applied to the proposal team.
• How well the proposal demonstrated how open and inclusive communication and
decision making would be developed.
• How well the proposal described how power structures and team dynamics
would be recognized to foster an effective team environment.
• How well the proposal demonstrated the flexibility and resiliency of the team to
changing scientific priorities in high-stress environments.
• How well the proposal demonstrated the team’s understanding of their role within
the broader Artemis Science Team (including Internal Team/PSPs/Deployed
Instrument Teams) as well as described a plan for, and commitment to,
interfacing and coordinating with the broader Team and other Artemis personnel.
• How well the proposal described a clear and actionable plan for maintaining
communication within and outside of the team.
• How well the proposal presented the Team’s view(s) on publication rights and
authorship.
4.3.2 Code of Conduct
The Code of Conduct will be evaluated based on the following factors:
• How well the proposal described the expected Team norms, i.e., important
aspects of interpersonal and Team interaction, such as open and inclusive
communication between Team members and Team problem solving and conflict
resolution.
• The extent to which the proposed Code of Conduct contained an adequate
description of expected and unacceptable behaviors, how these behaviors would
be identified, the process for reporting unacceptable behaviors, and
consequences for unacceptable behaviors.
5. Awards and Reporting
A single team will be selected from this call. It is anticipated that an award to a non-
governmental organization will be in the form of a cooperative agreement. The selection
official for this solicitation is the Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration in the
Science Mission Directorate.

C.25-15
5.1 Start Dates, Duration, and Size of Award
Awards are expected to be in place 9 months after the Step-2 deadline. The successful
team will be funded from this point until 12 months after crew return, including 6 months
post-mission to complete the Preliminary Geology Mission Report and the Preliminary
Examination Catalog(s), followed by 6 months to complete the Preliminary Geology
Science Report.
5.2 Description of NASA Contribution
The cooperative agreement resulting from this element represent a partnership between
NASA/SMD and the competitively selected team to participate in science and mission
operations for the Artemis III mission, scheduled for late 2025.
In addition to funding (subject to availability of appropriated funds), oversight, and
monitoring, NASA will be substantially involved by facilitating access for awardee to
NASA personnel in various directorates involved in mission planning and operations
activities being conducted throughout the Agency. In particular, NASA shall:
• Provide training to the selected team to be able to effectively participate in
mission operations
• Provide access to facilities before, during, and after mission operations to carry
out required science activities
• Provide access to personnel, materials, and tools to perform the required duties
• Provide guidance on best practices for mission operations and required science
activities.
5.3 Progress Reports
5.3.1 Annual progress reports
An Annual Progress Report will be due no later than 60 days in advance of the
anniversary date of the award. Awards to NASA Centers, including the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, always have an anniversary date of the start of the Federal fiscal year,
October 1.
5.3.2 Required reports
In place of the Final Report, the selected Team will contribute to the production of a
catalog of collected samples and Artemis III Preliminary Geology Mission and
Preliminary Geology Science Reports to be submitted to NASA and published publicly.
In addition, a Lessons Learned report will be submitted to NASA. These reports will be
due 6 months before the end of the performance period, with the exception of the
Preliminary Geology Science Report, which is due at the end of the performance period.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget $1.5M for year 1, $1.8M for years 2 and 3
Number of awards pending adequate 1
proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA

C.25-16
Planning date for start of investigation 9 months after the Step-2 deadline
Page limits for required sections See Table C.25-1
Relevance This program is relevant to the Planetary
Science questions, and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
this solicitation Solicitation.
General requirements for content of See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
proposals Program Overview, and Section IV and
Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation
Detailed instructions for the submission See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
of proposals 4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is required or permitted.
Web site for submission of proposal via https://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
NSPIRES available at 202-479-9376 or nspires-
help@nasaprs.com)
Web site for submission of proposal via https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available
Grants.gov at support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package NNH22ZDA001N-A3GT
from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this Sarah Noble
program, all of whom share this Planetary Science Division (PSD)/
address: Exploration Science Strategy and
Email: HQ- Integration Office (ESSIO)
ARTEMISGEOLOGY@mail.nasa.gov
Amanda Nahm
PSD/ESSIO

Debra Needham
ESSIO

C.25-17
C.26 APOLLO NEXT GENERATION SAMPLE ANALYSIS PROGRAM
NOTICE: Amended September 16, 2022. This amendment releases the
final text for this program element, which was previously released as
draft. The list of changes between draft and final text are listed in the
FAQ, which is posted on the NSPIRES page for this program element
under "Other documents". Step-1 proposals are due October 17, 2022,
and Step-2 proposals are due January 19, 2023.
Immediately following the Data Management Plan (See Section 3.4),
proposals must include a section titled "ANGSA Sample
Requirements" (See Section 3.5) followed by "Team Codes of
Conduct" (See Section 3.6).
1 Program Overview
1.1 Scope of Program
The goal of the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) Program is to
maximize the science derived from samples returned by the Apollo Program in
preparation for future lunar missions anticipated in the 2020s and beyond. To achieve
this, the 2nd ANGSA call will focus on small, high-value samples that are nearing their
pristinity limit.
“Pristine” Apollo samples are those which have been in NASA custody continuously
since return from the Moon. They are stored and handled in stainless steel glove
cabinets that are purged by high-purity nitrogen gas to minimize degradation of the
samples. Pristine samples have always been separated from human hands by three
layers of gloves. As a general guideline, lunar sample allocations are not made such
that the remaining sample falls below the so-called “pristinity limit” (less than 50% by
weight of the original mass). This applies not only to individual samples, but also to rare
types of clasts that may be found in breccias or soils. However, this opportunity is to
perform high-impact science, using a consortium approach, that focuses on small, high-
value samples nearing their pristinity limit and/or samples that are in high demand yet
have low mass and/or are nearing their pristinity limit. Therefore, NASA will consider
allocating samples that would result in the remaining pristine mass being less than 50%
of the original pristine material, dependent on the scientific merit of the proposal.
Only proposals that focus on the analysis of the list of highlighted samples below (in
Section 2.1) will be considered, although proposers are welcome to include other lunar
samples in their studies to help understand these rare samples. All proposed work must
be in support of the overarching priority science questions set forth in the Origins,
Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023 –
2032 (available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/planetary-science-and-
astrobiology-decadal-survey-2023-2032).

C.26-1
1.2 Types of Proposals and Consortium Formation
Proposals submitted to ANGSA must be consortium studies with investigators from
multiple institutions, utilizing numerous techniques.
ROSES strongly encourages proposals with meaningful participation (e.g., through
scientific collaboration) from minority-serving institutions (MSIs). Consistent with the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation, institution type (e.g., MSI) may be considered as a
programmatic factor in selection. Minority serving institutions may participate in multiple
ways: as proposing organizations, as sub-awardees, or as unfunded partners.
Proposers seeking to include MSIs in their team may consider, for example, referring to
the MSI Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/ to find potential participants on
their proposals.
In contrast to the previous ANGSA call, NASA will not be integrating the selected teams
into one over-arching consortium.
1.3 Proposals from Non-U.S. Organizations
International participation is welcome, either as team members of consortium studies
submitted by U.S. institutions, or as proposals submitted directly from foreign
institutions. Proposals submitted by non-U.S. institutions will be considered on a no-
exchange-of-funds basis. They will be reviewed to the same standards as those from
U.S. institutions and will be selected solely by NASA. Potential proposers should be
aware of the prohibition involving China, see Section IIIc of the ROSES-2022 Summary
of Solicitation.
Proposers from non-U.S. institutions should refer to the "NASA Foreign PI Instructions"
on the NSPIRES page for this program element. Proposals from non-U.S. institutions
must include a letter of endorsement and financial commitment from the agency or
institution that will be providing support for the investigation. Proposals from non-U.S.
institutions must contain all the required sections outlined in Table 1 of ROSES-2022,
including the required table of work effort for all proposal team members. For proposals
with no funded investigators at U.S. institutions, the required "Total Budget" attachment
in NSPIRES should consist of a single sentence: "This is a proposal from a non-U.S.
institution; therefore, this document has been left empty". The NSPIRES-based budget
may remain empty as well and the resulting system messages can be ignored.
2 Programmatic information
2.1 Sample Information
All the samples relevant to this opportunity are curated by the NASA Astromaterials
Acquisition and Curation Office, Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, Texas.
The highlighted samples include KREEP-rich samples, Mg-Suite and plutonic samples,
breccias, High-Al basalts, and granulites:
• KREEP-rich Samples: The KREEP-rich samples eligible for study under this
program are Apollo 15 KREEP-rich samples (15382 and 15386) and Apollo 14
KREEP-rich samples (14073, 14074, 14077, 14078, 14079).

C.26-2
 • Mg-Suite/Plutonic Samples: The Mg-Suite/Plutonic samples eligible for study
under this program are Apollo 17 (78235, 76535, 72415, 72416, 72417, 72418)
and Apollo 16 (67667).
• Breccias: The Apollo 12 granitic breccia (12013), Apollo 14 regolith breccia
(14047), Apollo 15 impact melt breccia (15405), Apollo 16 impact melt breccia
(60635), and Apollo 17 impact melt breccia (72255) are eligible for study under
this program.
• High-Al Basalts: The Apollo 14 High-Al Basalts (14053 and 14072) are eligible for
study under this program.
• Granulites: The Granulites eligible for study under this program are Apollo 17
(72559 and 79215) and Apollo 15 (15418).
Proposers are referred to the Programmatic Information Package on the NSPIRES
page for this program element, for more details regarding these samples, original
weights, and current pristinity. Additional sources of information are the NASA curation
website, https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/, and, within this site, the Lunar Sample
Compendium, https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/index.cfm.
2.2 Lunar Sample Requests
Normally, requests for the study of all Apollo samples are submitted to the JSC Curator
and reviewed by the Astromaterials Allocation Review Board (AARB). However, AARB
review for Apollo samples to be used in ANGSA proposals will be integrated into the
ANGSA proposal-review process itself. Proposers should not submit ANGSA sample
requests directly to JSC.
Section 3.5 explains the mandatory Sample Requirements section that must be
included as part of each ANGSA proposal document.
2.3 Facilities at JSC
The samples described in this call are stored in a dedicated suite of cleanrooms that
comprise the Apollo Lunar Sample Laboratory (ALSL) within the Astromaterials Curation
Facility at JSC. The facility is staffed by people experienced in the care, processing, and
handling of lunar materials (the Apollo Curatorial processing staff and the Apollo
Curator). To aid in sample selection, there are facilities available to make thin sections
suitable for optical and electron microscopy. There is also a Nikon XT H 320 X-ray
computed tomography instrument available to create 3D scans of samples prior to
allocation to aid in sample processing and selection, if specifically requested in the
proposal or deemed necessary following peer review. Any collected scans will be made
publicly available following current curation protocols subsequent to processing. The
laboratory complex and staff also provide the capability for high-resolution optical
photography of samples in the glove-box environment. A description of the clean-room
facilities can be accessed at https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/laboratory_tour.cfm. If
proposers wish to make any use of JSC facilities for scientific research or data analysis,
they should follow the typical process that would be utilized for any program element
and reach out to the specific parties of interest with collaboration requests.

C.26-3
2.4 Timeline for Sampling
It is anticipated that samples will be distributed within six (6) months of selection.
Proposers should accommodate this timing in the workplan, or may request their
performance period be coordinated with the timing of allocation.
2.5 Expected ANGSA Meetings
Due to the limited sample material, and in order to maximize the science extracted from
precious samples, the selected teams will work with NASA Curation personnel to
coordinate the overall effort. NASA curation personnel will be responsible for
determining the appropriate order of operations for sample selection and allocation to
maximize science return from the studied samples and will manage any conflicts among
teams that are requesting the same samples, should they arise. In order to maintain
open communication among individual consortia, especially those that may be working
on similar/the same samples, the selected teams will also be expected to participate in
regular telecons to discuss scientific results. Telecons are anticipated to take place no
more than 3 times per year and will also be managed and organized by the NASA
curation team.
All proposers should plan to travel to Houston in summer 2023 for a kickoff/planning
meeting at Johnson Space Center. The meeting itself is expected to occupy two
workdays. This meeting will provide an opportunity to plan sampling strategies, develop
timetables, meet with curation staff, select samples, and form working groups if desired.
Guidelines for inter-team communications will also be discussed.
3. Proposal Preparation and Submission
3.1 Proposal Content and Formatting
Proposals to ANGSA must follow all formatting requirements that are described in C.1,
the Planetary Science Research Program Overview and the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation, except for the length of biographical sketches, described below. Proposals
that violate the rules may be rejected without review, or declined following review, if
violations are detected during the evaluation process.
3.2 Statement of Relevance
Proposals to this program element do not require a separate or explicit statement of
relevance. However, as stated in Section 3.6 of C.1 The Planetary Science Research
Program Overview, all proposals, including those submitted to this program element,
will be evaluated for relevance to the program element. Consequently, proposers are
strongly encouraged to address the question of relevance in the Science/Technical/
Management (S/T/M) portion of the proposal.
3.3 Planetary Major Equipment and Facilities
Proposals to all programs may request equipment or instrumentation costing over
$50,000, using the instructions in Section 3.11 of C.1 The Planetary Science Research
Program Overview. Funding for such equipment will be derived from the ANGSA budget
stated below in Section 5; no supplemental funds will be available for this purpose.

C.26-4
3.4 Data Management Plans
Section 3.7 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, discusses the
requirements for Data Management Plans (DMPs) in proposals to this program element.
Please note that DMPs are mandatory for this program element and must be placed in a
special section no longer than two pages in length, immediately following the
References and Citations for the S/T/M section of the proposal. All sample analysis data
must be deposited into AstroMat (https://www.astromat.org/), if possible for the data
type and volume produced. Proposers should note that requirements for DMPs have
been updated from previous ROSES years.
3.5 Sample Requirements Documentation
Immediately following the Data Management plan, proposers must include a section
titled "ANGSA Sample Requirements". Here, the proposal must document the forms
and masses of samples needed for the proposed work, and whether analysis would be
destructive. This section does not have a length limit, and will only be used by reviewers
to evaluate the reasonableness of the sample request. This section may not contain any
technical details or scientific justification of the planned work.
The Sample Requirements section should be based on the guidelines for a normal
written request for Apollo samples, as outlined in section B of the JSC curation website
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm, and the checklist at
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/checklist.cfm.
Include the following specifications for all samples needed for research:
A. General types of samples: rocks, regolith (soil), regolith cores.
B. Special requirements: for example, location, depth, orientation in parent sample.
C. Specific lunar sample numbers (if known):
1. Five-digit "parent" number (for example, 74001) plus 1- to 4- digit "daughter"
number (for example, 6040) to give complete proper number (in this example,
74001,6040).
2. Sample identifications based on information published by other PIs should
identify the publications (and the page numbers in those publications) in which
the sample numbers appear. (Published sample numbers sometimes include
unofficial designations, given by individual PIs, that may differ from the official
designations maintained by the Lunar Sample Curator. The Curator must be able
to unambiguously identify the sample.)
D. Mass and/or volume requested for each sample.
E. Specification of whether "returned" (previously studied) lunar samples are
acceptable.
Describe, in general terms and referring to the S/T/M section of the proposal, the
analytical techniques to be applied to each sample.
1. Be specific: For example, do not say "probe" analysis; specify electron-, ion-, proton-,
or other microbeam method.
2. Make clear the intended uses of the proposed methods (for example, elemental
analyses by ICP-MS or SIMS vs. isotopic analyses by same techniques).
3. Identify which team member and facility would perform each analysis.

C.26-5
Do not include the following elements of a normal Apollo sample-request:
• Cover letters: No cover letters should be included from the PI or other team
members; the endorsed proposal serves to provide the same information.
• Requests for non-team members: No samples may be requested for investigators
who are not on the proposal team.
• Documentation of previous peer review.
• Reprints/preprints: No attachments of publications are permitted in this program
element.
• Description of scientific goals and objectives: Information about the goals and
objectives, details of proposed methodology and instrumentation, and project
milestones/timeline belong in the S/T/M section of the main proposal and will not be
evaluated if present in the Sample Requirements section.
Also, if needed, include in the Sample Requirements section a separate heading under
which are listed any Apollo samples already allocated to the proposing team for which
permission is being sought to conduct additional work.
You may also include in the Sample Requirements section a list of additional samples
already in hand and available for use in the proposed project, or that would need to be
requested from other collections at JSC or elsewhere.
3.6 Codes of Conduct for Consortium Team Members
Immediately following the “ANGSA Sample Requirements”, proposers must include a
section titled "Team Codes of Conduct." This section is limited to two pages in length. A
Team code of conduct defines the standards of behavior for Consortium Team
members. Codes of conduct are important for all Teams to ensure successful
communication within the Team, with other selected teams, with NASA curation, and
encourage full participation by all Team members. To protect and empower all members
of the Team, all proposals must include a code of conduct to which the Team will
adhere during all research activities. These codes of conduct must include a description
of Team norms, i.e., important aspects of interpersonal and Team interaction, such as
communication and interaction between Team members and Team problem solving and
conflict resolution. Additionally, the code of conduct must contain descriptions of which
behaviors are expected, which are not allowed, what to do if one experiences or
witnesses prohibited behaviors (i.e., how offenses are reported for individual Team
institutions), and how such issues will be dealt with (i.e., what are the potential
consequences for such offenses).
Examples of codes of conduct for Teams or what could be included in a code of conduct
can be found here: Project Include and The NEID Spectrograph.
3.7 Budgets and Schedule
All proposals should request a starting date no earlier than April 1, 2023.
All proposers should include in their budgets sufficient funds to travel to Houston in
summer 2023 for a kickoff/planning meeting at Johnson Space Center. The meeting
itself is expected to occupy two workdays.

C.26-6
4. Evaluation and Selection information
The three basic evaluation criteria are defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers. These criteria are intrinsic merit, relevance, and cost reasonableness.
They are applied as described in Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation. Clarifications specific to this program element are listed below.
Intrinsic Merit will include the appropriateness and availability of the proposed samples
for addressing the research objectives.
Relevant and cost-reasonable proposals of high intrinsic merit will be candidates for
selection. Selection criteria will also include programmatic balance, which in this case
will involve maximizing the scientific return that can be derived from the small high-value
samples that are nearing their pristinity limit.
All selections in this program element will be contingent on execution of loan
agreements with all institutions that are to receive Apollo samples or other materials
curated at JSC.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~$2M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~3–8, depending on sizes of proposed consortia
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Notice of intent See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for full proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of
April 1, 2023
investigation
Page limit for the central 15 pp, not including the DMP (Section 3.4),
Science/Technical/Management ANGSA Sample Requirements (Section 3.5), and
section of proposal Code of Conduct (Section 3.6); see also Table 1
of ROSES-2022 and the 2022 NASA Guidebook
for Proposers.
Relevance This program is relevant to the Planetary Science
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content See C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program
of proposals Overview, Section IV of ROSES-2022 Summary
of Solicitation and Table 1 of ROSES-2022
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
submission of proposals the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.

C.26-7
Submission medium
Website for submission of NOIs
and full proposals via NSPIRES
Website for submission of NOIs
and full proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program all of whom share this
address:
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ANGSA
Kathleen E. Vander Kaaden
Sarah K. Noble
Jeffrey N. Grossman
Email (Preferred):
HQ-ANGSA@mail.nasa.gov
Telephone: (202) 779-3088 (Vander Kaaden)
Telephone: (202) 358-2492 (Noble)
Telephone: (202) 358-1218 (Grossman)
C.26-8
C.27 PRECURSOR SCIENCE INVESTIGATIONS FOR EUROPA
NOTICE: Amended September 16, 2022. This amendment presents
final text for this program element which was released as draft in
ROSES-2021. Text changes from the draft to this final version include:
1) The addition of the six bulleted critical questions to Section 1,
2) Minor changes to the wording of the evaluation criteria in Section 5
3) Various minor changes to text to improve clarity
Step-1 proposals are due November 1, 2022, and Step-2 proposals are
due December 16, 2022.
Step-2 proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a
dual-anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared
according to the guidelines in Section 2.5 and in the associated
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under other
documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
1. Introduction and Scope
The goal of the Precursor Science Investigations for Europa (PSI-E) program is to
further the understanding of critical topics in Europa exploration in advance of the
Europa Clipper mission. This precursor work will provide critical context to enable more
efficient analysis of Clipper data by the science community and will help generate
discoveries and new questions that will feed into mission planning for the latter half of
the prime mission and for any potential extended mission. This will maximize the
science return from the radiation-limited lifetime of the Europa Clipper.
Proposals must seek to significantly address at least one of the following critical
questions:
• How does the Europan surface environment physically and/or chemically alter
materials and compounds on the surface, especially complex and/or organic
compounds, and how will that affect interpretation of Clipper data?
• How might processes that transport materials through the ice shell fractionate
chemical signals of ocean water and/or express themselves as surface or
subsurface features observable by Clipper?
• How can interpretation of physical features on Europa’s surface be improved to
reveal the underlying processes and physical laws that created them, especially
over the range of spatial resolutions, depths, and coverage inherent to Clipper
data sets?
• What is the range of possibilities for interior (ice shell, ocean, and deeper layers)
structure and properties, salinity, dynamics and evolution that can be expected
at Europa, and how can models, observations, experiments, and data science
methods better constrain these to improve interpretation of Clipper datasets?
• How can observable signatures of recent activity (e.g., plumes, thermal
anomalies, or changes from Galileo observations) at Europa be used to
constrain hypotheses about the materials and endogenic processes that drive
the activity and its frequency?

C.27-1
 • What forms and quantities of bio-essential elements and energy that contribute
to habitability could be available in liquid water environments on Europa, and
what evidence of these elements could be preserved at the surface and
detected by Clipper?
NASA expects that successful pursuit of these questions will require a collaborative,
multidisciplinary approach. Additionally, the utilization of terrestrial analogs, modeling,
laboratory experiments, and other techniques is likely necessary and is encouraged. As
a result, the investigations solicited here may require greater levels of effort and a
larger, more interdisciplinary team than a typical investigation under other ROSES
planetary science program elements. Consequently, while there is no specified size for
an investigation team, the PSI-E program provides an opportunity for larger teams and
greater resources than seen in the typical ROSES investigations under other planetary
science program elements.
The Precursor Science Investigations for Europa program is an applied science
program seeking to fund short-term, focused investigations that provide answers
sufficient to guide analysis of Europa Clipper data. Pursuing fundamental research (for
example, basic ice properties) is allowed but only in the context of this applied science
goal and the questions above. Investigations are limited to a duration of no more than
three years.
NASA recognizes and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive scientific,
engineering, and technology communities and fully expects the reflection of such values
in the composition of all panels and teams, including peer review panels, proposal
teams, science definition teams, and mission and instrument teams. To broaden the
base of investigators involved in SMD-supported science and engineering, SMD
especially seeks proposals from investigators who and institutions that have rarely, if
ever received funding from SMD. A resource that some proposers may find useful is the
NASA MSI Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 General Information
Proposal must describe a complete science investigation that significantly addresses at
least one of the questions above and which must be identified in the proposal. No other
questions are allowed, and proposals containing such questions will be returned without
review. Production of higher-order data products, maps, or models (e.g., geologic maps,
environmental radiation models, etc.) that could enhance the science return from the
Europa Clipper mission are allowed but only as part of a larger investigation that is
responsive to the goal of Precursor Science Investigations for Europa program and the
question(s) identified in the proposal.
2.2 Duration and Sizes of Awards
Proposals may request support for up to three years.
Proposers are encouraged to request the funding needed to conduct the work described
in the proposal. All proposals, regardless of the level of funding requested, must
adequately describe and justify the requested funding levels. Proposers should be

C.27-2
aware of the average expected award size (Section 6). Proposals significantly
exceeding the annual funding level described in Section 6 face additional programmatic
scrutiny since their selection could reduce the total number of selections.
2.3 Growing the Next Generation of Leaders
NASA is committed to developing a planetary science community that includes the next
diverse generation of scientists, engineers, and managers who will eventually lead
NASA’s explorations. This need is especially critical given the lifespan of missions such
as Europa Clipper. As such, the PSI-E program is an integral part of the Clipper Next
Gen Initiative whose goal is to grow a science community that reflects the diversity of
the country as a whole and is prepared to join and lead the Clipper extended mission.
Proposals will be evaluated on the extent to which they reflect this commitment and goal
through the funded inclusion of researchers at various career stages, but in particular
undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows, as appropriate to
contribute to the research investigation. If present and meritorious, this section may
result in strengths, see Section 5, but it’s absence will not result in a weakness. Since
any discussion of this topic is in the anonymized S/T/M section, proposals should refer
in this section to researcher career stage (e.g., undergraduate, graduate student, or
postdoc, early career, etc.) without naming individuals or organizations.
2.4 Requests for the Purchase of Instrumentation
Proposals may include requests for the purchase or upgrade of instrumentation needed
to perform the work. Refer to Section 3.11 of C.1 The Planetary Science Research
Program Overview for instructions on how to propose instrumentation costing more than
$50,000.
2.5 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which proposers are unaware of the identity of the members on the
review panel and the reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams
during the scientific evaluation of the proposal. The overarching objective of dual-
anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit of a
proposal.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for
this program element that explains how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-
anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team, and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and 2) proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources – Not
Anonymized" document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
identifying information.

C.27-3
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit, without
taking into account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after
the scientific evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The panel will use the non-
anonymized documents to assess if the qualifications and capabilities of the team are
sufficient to execute the proposed investigation.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must

C.27-4
 provide a high-level outline of the computing resources required
in an anonymized fashion.
Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.
3. Data, Facilities, and Archiving
3.1 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Proposers are advised to read Section 4 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research
Program Overview for information on facilities and data sources that are available to
supported investigators. If their use is anticipated, this should be discussed and justified
in the submitted proposals (especially note the provision for such discussion in the
proposal section entitled Facilities and Equipment). As mentioned in Section 4.3 of C.1
the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, for any facility required for the
proposed effort, the proposal must state that the team has access to it or provide a
letter of resource support from the facility or resource confirming that it is available for
the proposed use, during the proposed period. The not-anonymized information should
be placed in the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized" document.
3.2 Data Archiving and Map Publication
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(consistent with Section 3.7 of program element C.1). Proposers who plan
investigations involving geologic mapping should consult program element C.1 for
guidance on submission and requirements for publication of U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) maps. The scientific goal of such a geologic map product should be clearly
explained and justified within the proposal and must be tied to the question(s) being
addressed.
4. Proposal Submission and Content
4.1 The Two-Step Submission Process
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process described in
Section 2 of C.1 the Planetary Science Research Program Overview. Step-1 proposals
are mandatory and must be submitted by the proposing organization. Step-2 proposals
will not be accepted without the submission of a Step-1 proposal

C.27-5
4.2 Step-2 Proposal Content
As part of the relevance discussion Step-2 proposals must present a rationale for how
the proposed work would be responsive to the goals of this program element (i.e., to
further understanding of critical topics for exploration of Europa in advance of the
Europa Clipper mission and enable the science community to more efficiently analyze
mission data and generate discoveries in a timely manner). Specifically, the proposal
must specify which of the permitted questions it would address, how the proposed work
would address the question, and how results would enable more efficient analysis of
mission data.
5. Step-2 Proposal Evaluation Process and Criteria
Step-2 proposals will be evaluated by a peer review panel using the three evaluation
criteria described in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers: Intrinsic Merit, Relevance to
the objectives of the Precursor Science Investigations for Europa program, and Cost
Reasonableness. The failure of a proposal to be rated highly in any one of these factors
may cause the proposal not to be selected. In addition to the factors given in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers, evaluation of proposals for this program element includes the
following factors, as appropriate.
Relevance additionally includes:
• if present, the inclusion of opportunities to grow the next generation of leaders via
authentic research experiences, training, and/or mentoring (see Section 2.3).
Intrinsic Merit additionally includes:
• if present, the quality of opportunities to grow the next generation of leaders via
authentic research experiences, training, and/or mentoring.
Cost Reasonableness additionally includes:
• if present, the adequacy of funding requested to opportunities to grow the next
generation of leaders via authentic research experiences, training, and/or
mentoring.
Although not part of the peer review process, the selection official may take into account
programmatic considerations such as impact on current or future missions, or balance
across the following: subdisciplines, technologies, methodologies, career stage, risk,
innovation, types of institutions (e.g., MSI, PUI, vs. R1).
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first $2.5M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~4
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of ~6 months after the Step-2 proposal due date.
investigation

C.27-6
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
This program is relevant to the Planetary
Science questions, and goals in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
See C.1 the Planetary Science Research
Program Overview, and Section IV and Table
1 of ROSES-2022.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-PSIE
Curt Niebur
Planetary Science Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: curt.niebur@nasa.gov (preferred)
Telephone: (202) 358-0390
C.27-7
APPENDIX D. ASTROPHYSICS RESEARCH PROGRAM

D.1 ASTROPHYSICS RESEARCH PROGRAM OVERVIEW

1. Introduction
The objectives of research solicited in program elements D.2 through D.17 of this NASA
Research Announcement (NRA) are focused on achieving the goals of the Science
Mission Directorate’s (SMD) Astrophysics Research Program, as defined in SMD's
Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence (available at
http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy). Proposers to the program elements
described in Appendix D are encouraged to read this NASA Science Plan, the
Astrophysics Roadmap (available at
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/documents/astrophysics-roadmap), and the report
of the Astro2020 Decadal survey, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and
Astrophysics for the 2020s,(available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/26141/pathways-
to-discovery-in-astronomy-and-astrophysics-for-the-2020s) to gauge the relevance of
their research to the Astrophysics Research Program.
The NASA Guidebook for Proposers (available at
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocfo/gpc/regulations_and_guidance) and the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation provide clear and specific requirements for the format of
proposals submitted in response to this solicitation: page limits, acceptable font sizes,
line spacing, margins, etc. See also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Some of the program elements listed below also include formatting requirements. These
requirements have been developed to ensure a level playing field for all proposers. The
Astrophysics Division takes these requirements seriously and proposals found to violate
them will be penalized, to the extent of not being evaluated or considered for funding. It
is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that a submission complies with all
formatting requirements.
Proposers are reminded that it is the PDF version of their proposal in NSPIRES that will
be judged for responsiveness and compliance. In rare cases, cross-platform translation
of PDF documents can alter the formatting of a document. To ensure that they still
conform to all formatting requirements, proposers are strongly urged to download
copies of all documents after upload to NSPIRES.
The program elements included as of the release date of this ROSES NRA are
described below in Sections 3-18.
1.1 Inclusion Plan Requirement
SMD is committed to fostering an environment that supports NASA's core value of Inclusion
and implementing Strategy 4.1 from A Vision for Scientific Excellence. Creating an atmosphere
of inclusion and respect for all, as outlined in NASA's Anti-harassment Program and DEIA
policies, allows NASA and its partners to value the strengths afforded by both our
commonalities and differences with an aim to fully engage all talents, ideas, and perspectives.
In support of these goals, some program elements in ROSES-22 will require the insertion
addition of an inclusion plan to:

D.1-1
 • Identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for those
carrying out the proposed investigation,
• Address ways in which the investigation team will work against these barriers to create
and sustain such an environment, such as fostering communication and openness
amongst the team, involving under-represented groups in proposal activities, etc., and
• Discuss contributions the proposed investigation will make to the training and
development of a diverse and inclusive scientific workforce.
The following ROSES Astrophysics elements require an inclusion plan:
• D.3 Astrophysics Research and Analysis (APRA)
• D.7 Strategic Astrophysics Technology (SAT)
• D.12 Theoretical and Computational Astrophysics Networks (TCAN)
• D.13 Astrophysics Pioneers
• D.15 LISA Preparatory Science (LPS)
• D.16 Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor Science (ADSPS)
The required inclusion plans will be up to two pages, immediately following the Data
Management Plan.
If forming and sustaining inclusive teams incur extra costs at the participating institutions, such
costs may be included in the submitted budget of the proposal.
Feedback will be provided to the proposers as part of the panel review summaries but will not
contribute to the adjectival ratings or selection recommendations. However, a proposal
determined to be selected or selectable for funding may not be funded until an adequate
inclusion plan is submitted and approved by NASA. If the NASA requested revision of, or
addition to, an inclusion plan will involve extra cost, a revised budget will also be submitted.
Proposers seeking to enjoy the benefits of a more diverse team may consider, for
example, referring to the Minority Serving Institution (MSI) Exchange at
https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/ as a place for proposers to find participants on their
proposals.
Note that even though the assessment of the inclusion plan will not be part of the
adjectival grade for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals, funding
will only be released to selected institutions when a satisfactory inclusion plan is
approved by the NASA Program Manager of this program element.
1.2 Data Management Plans and Archiving
The Data Management Plan (DMP) will be evaluated as part of the Intrinsic Merit of the
proposal and must be included in a special section (see below).
With the exception of D.7 Strategic Astrophysics Technology (SAT), D.8 Nancy Grace
Roman Technology Fellowships (RTF), and General Observer/Investigator/Scientist
programs that use the 2-phase submission process (D.5, D.6, D.9-D.11), all proposals
to Appendix D require a DMP or an explanation of why one is not necessary given the
nature of the work proposed (e.g., hardware development investigations). Even if a
DMP is not required with the proposal, the information needed to validate the scientific
conclusions of peer-reviewed publications resulting from the award, including data
underlying figures, maps, and tables, must be available electronically at the time of

D.1-2
publication, ideally in supplementary material with the article. Code developed should
be made publicly available when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when there is
scientific utility in doing so.
The default presumption is that when a DMP is required, the sufficiency of the data
management plan will be part of Merit and thus may have a bearing on whether or not
the proposal is selected.
The DMP must cover any data needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-
reviewed publications, particularly data underlying figures, maps, and tables. It also
needs to cover any other data and software that would enable future research or the
replication/reproduction of published results.
"Data" does not include preliminary and other unpublished data, data in prepublication
documents, private communications, or certain other types of information that have
been specifically exempted from the DMP requirement.
In the case of a project that would produce no data, as defined above, or only data
specifically exempted, the DMP must state that no data preservation or data sharing is
needed and explain why. In a case where no appropriate archive exists for a particular
data set, the DMP should discuss alternative methods for making the data publicly
available.
The DMP must contain the following elements, as appropriate to the project, in
adequate detail for review:
• A description of data types, volume, formats, and (where relevant) standards;
• A description of the schedule for data archiving and sharing;
• A description of the intended repositories for archived data, including
mechanisms for public access and distribution;
• A discussion of how the plan enables long-term preservation of data;
• A discussion of roles and responsibilities of team members in accomplishing the
DMP. (If funds are required for data management activities, these should be
covered in the normal budget and budget justification sections of the proposal.)
DMPs will be reviewed as part of the overall NASA research proposal review process.
Proposals that do not address each of these items in their DMP, even if determined to
be selected or selectable for funding, may not be funded. Funded researchers, research
institutions, and NASA centers are responsible for ensuring and demonstrating
compliance with the DMPs approved as part of their awards. Awardees who do not fulfill
the intent of their DMPs may have continuing funds withheld and this may be
considered in the evaluation of future proposals.
For some program elements, the nature of the work is inexorably linked to the handling
of data, so DMP is part of the page limited for Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M)
section of the proposal, e.g., D.2 Astrophysics Data Analysis (ADAP). With the
exception of those elements where it explicitly says otherwise, all proposals that require
DMPs must place it in a special section of the proposal, not to exceed two pages in
length entitled "Data Management Plan" immediately following the references and
citations for the S/T/M portion of the proposal. The two-page DMP section does not
count against the page-limited S/T/M section. Formatting requirements for DMPs are

D.1-3
the same as for the S/T/M section. For programs that use the 2-phase submission
process (General Observer/Investigator programs (D.5, D.6, D.9-D.11), no DMP is
required.
The DMP must cover any data needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-
reviewed publications, particularly data underlying figures, maps, and tables. It also
needs to cover any other data and software that would enable future research or the
replication/reproduction of published results.
Software, whether a stand-alone program, an enhancement to existing code, or a
module that interfaces with existing codes, created as part of a ROSES award, should
be made publicly available when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when there is
scientific utility in doing so. Stand-alone code that is not straightforward to implement, or
whose utility is significantly outweighed by the costs to share it, is not expected to be
made available. This expectation extends to three types of software, defined as follows:
Short Name Name Description Examples
Libraries Libraries and Generic tools Numerical Recipes, NumPy,
toolkits implementing well-known general FFTs, LAPACK,
algorithms, providing scikit-learn, AstroPy, GDAL
statistical analysis or
visualization, and so on,
that are incorporated in
other software
categories.
Analysis Analysis, Generalized software Stand-alone image
software post- (not low-level libraries) processing, topology
processing, used to manipulate analysis, vector-field
or measurements or model analysis, satellite analysis
visualization results to visualize or tools, and so on
software gain understanding.
Frameworks Modeling Multicomponent software Community Earth System
frameworks systems that incorporate Model (CESM) is a
a variety of models and collection of coupled
couple them together in a models including
complex way. atmospheric,
oceanographic, sea ice,
land surface, and other
models

SMD expects that the source code, with associated documentation sufficient to enable
use of the code, will be made publicly available as Open Source Software (OSS) under
an appropriately permissive license (e.g., Apache-2, BSD-3-Clause, GPL). This includes
all software developed with SMD funding used in the production of data products, as
well as software developed to discover, access, visualize, and transform NASA
data. OSS is defined as software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by

D.1-4
anyone. Awardees will not be required to continue maintenance of their software
beyond the submission of the software to an appropriate repository.
The DMP should mention how the proposers would satisfy the requirement to make
manuscript versions of peer reviewed publications available. For more details and
definitions about what scientific information should be shared, see Section II.c of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation, SPD-41: Scientific Information Policy and to the DMP
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for ROSES.
1.3 Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to most program elements within the Astrophysics Research
Program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer review (DAPR) process in
which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of reviewers, but the reviewers are
not told the proposing teams or organizations until after they have evaluated the
scientific merit of all of the anonymized proposals. The overarching objective of dual-
anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit of a
proposal. This is described in Section VI(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and
the descriptions for each of these elements provides instructions on how to prepare
'anonymized' proposals, a link to a special web FAQ on this subject, and each element
has a corresponding "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document located on its
NSPIRES page. DAPR will be applied to proposals submitted to D.2 Astrophysics Data
Analysis (ADAP), D.16 Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor Science (ADSPS), D.17
X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission Guest Scientist Program (XGS), all
Astrophysics General Investigator/Observer/Scientist programs (D.5, D.6, and D.9-
D.11), and the cross-divisional F.3 Exoplanets Research program (XRP).
1.4 Appropriate Funding Vehicles
Unless otherwise noted in the individual program elements, the Astrophysics Division
does not anticipate awarding contracts in response to proposals submitted to program
elements in Appendix D, because it would not be appropriate for the nature of the work
solicited. If a prospective proposer to a program element that excludes contracts thinks
that their work should be a contract, they should communicate with the point of contact
for that program element prior to submission and cc sara@nasa.gov.
1.5 Previously Selected Proposals
Abstracts of previously selected investigations may be found online at
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ by choosing "Solicitations" followed by "Closed/Past
Selected", searching on the name or abbreviation of the program (e.g., ADAP), and
downloading the selections PDF file from the home page of that program element.
2. Prohibition on Duplicate Proposals
Proposers may not submit full proposals for the same, or essentially the same, work to
more than one program element described here concurrently. This prohibition is active
for a particular submitted proposal until the PI is notified through NSPIRES that the
proposal was declined or until the proposal is withdrawn. The prohibition on duplicate
proposals applies across ROSES years as well (e.g., a duplicate of a pending ROSES-
2021 proposal may not be submitted in response to ROSES-2022). If a second proposal

D.1-5
is submitted while a duplicate proposal is still pending in another program element, only
the first proposal will be evaluated; the duplicate proposal may not be evaluated or
considered and may be returned without review.
If a second proposal contains substantive changes in areas that are critical to the
intrinsic merit evaluation, such as the goals, objectives, or methodology, then it is not
considered to be a duplicate proposal.
Changes to a proposal that would fall outside of the merit evaluation are not considered
substantive, and two proposals with only changes in these areas may be considered
duplicates. Examples of proposal sections not considered in merit evaluation include:
• List of Co-Investigators and Collaborators;
• Current and pending support section;
• Relevance statement; and
• Budget section
In addition, minor changes to aspects of a proposal covered by the merit evaluation
(DMP, team, concepts, implementation, target, etc.) may not be considered substantive.
If it is unclear if changes to a proposal are substantial enough for that proposal to not be
considered a duplicate proposal, or it is unclear to which program a proposal should be
submitted, proposers should contact the point of contact for the program element most
likely to be appropriate for the proposal, before the proposal deadline.
3. Astrophysics Data Analysis
The Astrophysics Data Analysis Program (ADAP; program element D.2) supports
research with a primary emphasis on the analysis of archival data from current and past
NASA space astrophysics missions. The magnitude and scope of the archival data from
those missions enables science that transcends traditional wavelength regimes and
allows researchers to answer questions that would be difficult, if not impossible, to
address through an individual observing program. Proposals to ADAP will be evaluated
using dual-anonymous peer review, as mentioned in Section 1, above.
4. Astrophysics Research and Analysis
The Astrophysics Research and Analysis program (APRA; program element D.3)
supports suborbital and suborbital-class investigations, development of detectors and
supporting technology, and laboratory astrophysics. Basic research proposals in these
areas are solicited for investigations that are relevant to NASA's programs in astronomy
and astrophysics, including the entire range of photons, gravitational waves, and
particle astrophysics. The emphasis of this solicitation is on technologies and
investigations that advance NASA astrophysics missions and goals. Projects devoted to
technology development efforts (Detector Development and Supporting Technology
categories) that do not generate scientific data need not provide a data management
plan and proposers may simply cite this statement as the entirety of their Data
Management Plan. Proposals to APRA require inclusions plans, as mentioned in
Section 1, above. New in APRA in 2022 is the category Astrophysics U.S. Participating
Investigator, for NASA-funded researchers to participate as Co-Investigators on a space

D.1-6
flight or suborbital-class mission, instrument, experiment, or technology demonstration
that is being sponsored by an agency other than NASA
5. Astrophysics Theory
The Astrophysics Theory Program (ATP; program element D.4) supports theoretical
investigations or modeling of the astrophysical phenomena targeted by past, current, or
future NASA astrophysics space missions. Laboratory work related to NASA strategic
goals in gravitation and fundamental physics is now supported in the Astrophysics
Research and Analysis program (APRA; program element D.3). Theoretical work
pertaining to atomic and molecular astrophysics and other topics directly related to
Laboratory Astrophysics should also be proposed to APRA.
Beginning with ROSES-2020, the Astrophysics Division consolidated its support for
exoplanet science investigations under the Exoplanet Research Program (XRP;
ROSES-2022, Appendix F.3). Consequently, theoretical and computational
investigations focused on the formation, evolution, or characterization of protoplanetary
and debris disks, exoplanet atmospheres, and exoplanetary systems are hereby
excluded from the scope of ATP. Researchers interested in developing proposals in
these areas are directed to Appendix F.3 of ROSES-2022. For investigations whose
focus falls close to the boundaries between exoplanet science and other areas of
astrophysics (e.g., brown dwarf investigations or studies relating to exoplanet host
stars), prospective proposers are encouraged to contact the Program Officer listed in
the program element or on the SARA PO list for guidance.
Beginning in ROSES-2017, the Astrophysics Theory Program (ATP) element of ROSES
converted to soliciting proposals on a biennial basis. Thus, ATP proposals will not be
solicited in ROSES-2022 and will be solicited again in ROSES-2023.
6. Astrophysics General Observer / General Investigator (GO/GI) Programs
Five program elements support science investigations that require and/or support new
data obtained with currently operating NASA astrophysics space missions. GO/GI
programs are included for the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory gamma-ray burst explorer
(program element D.5), the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope (program element
D.6), the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR, program element D.9), the
Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS, program element D.10), and the Neutron
star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER, program element D.11).
All the above GO/GI Programs will be evaluated using dual-anonymous peer review, as
mentioned in Section 1, above.
Guest investigator programs for the James Webb Space Telescope (https://jwst-
docs.stsci.edu), the Hubble Space Telescope (http://www.stsci.edu/hst/), the Chandra
X-ray Observatory (http://cxc.harvard.edu/), and the Stratospheric Observatory for
Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) (https://www.sofia.usra.edu/) are solicited separately by the
respective science centers of those missions.
7. Strategic Astrophysics Technology
The Strategic Astrophysics Technology program (SAT; program element D.7) supports
focused development efforts for key technologies to the point at which they are ready to
D.1-7
feed into major missions in the three science themes of the Astrophysics Division:
Exoplanet Exploration, Cosmic Origins, and the Physics of the Cosmos. This program is
specifically designed to address middle technology readiness level (TRL) "gaps"
between levels 3 and 6, the maturation of technologies that have been established as
feasible, but which are not yet sufficiently mature to incorporate into flight missions
without introducing an unacceptable level of risk. NASA does not require a data
management plan for proposals to SAT. Proposals to SAT require inclusions plans, as
mentioned in Section 1, above.
Due to its strategic nature, this program element is intended to be responsive to the
2020 Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics recommendations.
8. Nancy Grace Roman Technology Fellowship Program
The goals of the Nancy Grace Roman Technology Fellowship (RTF, program element
D.8) program in Astrophysics are to provide early-career researchers the opportunity to
develop the skills necessary to lead astrophysics flight instrument development projects,
including suborbital investigations, in preparation to become principal investigators (PIs)
of future astrophysics missions; to develop innovative technologies for space
astrophysics that have the potential to enable major scientific breakthroughs; and to
foster new talent by putting early-career instrument builders on a trajectory towards
long-term positions.
The RTF program consists of two components with two different submission
procedures. The first component is a one-page application from an eligible early-career
individual to be named a Roman Technology Fellow. The application is submitted as
part of a proposal submitted to the Astrophysics Research and Analysis (APRA) or
Strategic Astrophysics Technology (SAT) Program described in program elements D.3
and D.7 of this ROSES solicitation. The second component is the subsequent
submission of a proposal for Fellowship Funding by a previously selected Roman
Technology Fellow once that individual obtains a permanent or permanent-track
position, in order to start a laboratory or develop a research group at the Fellow’s
institution. Projects devoted to technology development that will not generate scientific
data need not provide a data management plan and proposers may simply cite this
statement as the entirety of their Data Management Plan.
9. Astrophysics Explorers U.S. Participating Investigators
ROSES no longer separately solicits proposals for Astrophysics Explorers U.S.
Participating Investigators (APEX USPI) for potential Astrophysics Explorers
investigations in which investigators participate as a Co-Investigator (Co-I) for an
instrument, experiment, or technology demonstration that is being built and flown by a
sponsor agency other than NASA. Starting in ROSES-2022, such proposals should be
submitted to the Astrophysics Research and Analysis (APRA) program element D. 3.
10. Theoretical and Computational Astrophysics Networks
The Theoretical and Computational Astrophysics Networks (TCAN, program element
D.12) supports coordinated efforts in fundamental theory and computational techniques
in order to make groundbreaking advances in astrophysics and strengthen theoretical

D.1-8
and computational astrophysics in the U.S. by uniting researchers in collaborative
networks that cross institutional and geographical divides. The TCAN program element
of ROSES solicits proposals on a triennial basis and proposals are solicited in ROSES-
2022. Proposals to TCAN require inclusions plans, as mentioned in Section 1, above.
11. Pioneers
The Pioneers Astrophysics space and sub-orbital science investigations program
(program element D.13) solicits proposals that are greater in cost, scope and capability
than what is possible within the Astrophysics Research and Analysis (APRA) program
(D.3) but are smaller in cost than what is possible within the Astrophysics Explorers
Mission of Opportunity (MO) program. Investigations are solicited using platforms that
include CubeSats (including constellations), SmallSats, lunar surface hosted payloads
via the Commercial Lunar Payloads Services (CLPS) program, major balloon missions,
and International Space Station (ISS)-attached payloads. Technology development and
maturation within the proposed project is allowed, but the primary review criterion for
selection is the merit of the proposed science investigation. Proposals to Pioneers
require inclusions plans, as mentioned in Section 1, above.
12. Roman Research and Support Opportunities
The Roman Research and Support Opportunities program (Roman, program
element D.14) anticipated to be revised with additional details in early 2022,
solicits proposals in of three categories: one concerning Wide Field Science
(WFS); one pertaining to Project Infrastructure Teams (PITs); and one related to
a coronagraph community participation program (CPP). For planning purposes,
prospective proposers should anticipate that a more complete solicitation will be
published well before the Notice of Intent deadline.
13. LISA Preparatory Science
NASA is partnering with the European Space Agency (ESA) on the ESA-led Laser
Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) gravitational wave observatory planned for launch
in the early 2030s. The LISA Preparatory Science program (LPS, program element
D.15) has been created to provide support for U.S. investigators to conduct activities
that contribute to furthering the eventual science yield of LISA. It is not intended as a
vehicle for funding specific U.S. contributions to the LISA instrument or science ground
segment, or to develop concepts for other missions outside of LISA. Proposals to LPS
require inclusions plans, as mentioned in Section 1, above.
14. Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor Science
The Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor Science (ADSPS) program element
supports research in areas related to the National Academy of Science and Engineering
report, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s
recommendation for a large Infrared/Optical/Ultraviolet space mission to search for
biosignatures from nearby exoplanets and to perform transformative astrophysics
investigations, a large Far-Infrared mission, and a large X-ray mission. Basic research
proposals to ADSPS should describe how scientific progress in the areas being
investigated will either reduce the design and development risk for one or more of these

D.1-9
future large missions or help to define the requirements such missions must meet to
enable transformative discoveries. Proposals to ADSPS will be evaluated using the
dual-anonymous peer review process and require inclusions plans, as mentioned in
Section 1, above.
15. X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission Guest Scientist Program
The objective of the X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) Guest Scientist
(XGS) program element of ROSES is to enhance the scientific return during the
Performance Verification (PV) phase (sometimes referred to as the Guaranteed Time
Observing (GTO) phase) of XRISM by opening the opportunity to participate in the
analysis of data collected on individual targets during the XRISM PV phase to U.S.-
based and Canadian scientists who are not members of the NASA-appointed
instrument team. Proposals to XGS will be evaluated using dual-anonymous peer
review, as mentioned in Section 1, above.
16. Exoplanets Research Program
The cross-divisional Exoplanets Research Program (XRP, program element F.3) solicits
investigations that significantly improve our understanding of exoplanets and exoplanet
formation. XRP supports observational, laboratory, modeling, and theoretical studies.
Proposals must also clearly describe how results will facilitate the interpretation of data
from NASA space missions and/or lead to predictions that can be tested with NASA
space mission observations. Proposals to XRP will be evaluated using dual-anonymous
peer review, as mentioned in Section 1, above.
17. Topical Workshops
All proposals for topical conferences, workshops, or symposia related to the
Astrophysics Division Research Program must be submitted in response to program
element F.2, Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences, of this NRA. Proposers
to F.2 should specifically identify the Astrophysics research program element to which
the conference, workshop, or symposium is most closely related, and refer to the goals
and objectives of that program element in demonstrating relevance.
18. Citizen Science Seed Funding Program
The Astrophysics Division participates in the cross-divisional program on Citizen
Science Seed Funding, which is described in program element F.9. Citizen Science
Seed Funding proposals supporting Astrophysics research goals are encouraged.
19. Overall Point of Contact for Astrophysics ROSES Program Elements
Stefan Immler
Lead R&A Program Officer
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 531-9262
Email: stefan.immler@nasa.gov

D.1-10
Technical questions regarding individual Appendix D program elements should be
directed to the Points of Contact listed in the tables at the bottom of each program
element D.2 to D.17.

D.1-11
D.2 U ASTROPHYSICS DATA ANALYSIS
NOTICE: Corrected March 16, 2022. Vestigial text inconsistent with
DAPR has been deleted from the penultimate paragraph in Section 1.2,
where deleted text now appears as strikethrough. The due dates are
unchanged: Notices of intent are requested by April 1, 2022, and
proposals are due May 19, 2022.
1. U Scope of Program
Over the years, NASA has invested heavily in the development and execution of an
extensive array of space astrophysics missions. The magnitude and scope of the
archival data from those missions enables science that transcends traditional
wavelength regimes and allows researchers to answer questions that would be difficult,
if not impossible, to address through an individual observing program. To capitalize on
this invaluable asset and enhance the scientific return on NASA mission investments,
this Astrophysics Data Analysis Program (ADAP) program in ROSES provides support
for investigations whose focus is on the analysis of archival data from NASA space
astrophysics missions.
1.1 Special Considerations for ADAP Proposers
U

• For the first time, data from NASA’s Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) will
be available in the public domain and eligible for support under the ADAP.
Launched 9 December 2021, IXPE is a NASA Small-Explorer Mission, in partnership
with the Italian space agency (Agenzia Spatiale Italiano, ASI). IXPE data and data
products will be publicly available at NASA’s HEASARC
( https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/ixpe.html ) within one week of
28TU U28T

completion of each observation. These include Level-1 (with electron-track images)

and Level-2 event files; attitude, orbital position, and other relevant engineering data;
and updates to the master observing list. Prospective proposers are reminded that
only data products available in the public domain at the ADAP 2022 proposal
submission deadline are eligible for support under this solicitation (see Section 1.3).
• Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using the dual-anonymous
peer review process introduced under ROSES-2020. In this process, not only are
proposers unaware of the identity of the members on the review panel, but the
reviewers will be unaware of the identities of the proposing team during the merit
evaluation of the proposal (see Section 2, below). The overarching objective of dual-
anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit
of a proposal.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information
that would identify proposers, so p roposers must follow the instructions in Section 2,
33T

below and the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other
Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element that explain how to
properly prepare the proposal for dual-anonymous peer review .
33T 3 3T

• The budget justification of any proposal that involves the collection and analysis of
new ground-based observations must include (1) an explicit statement that all costs
associated with the ground-based portion of the project are less than 25% of the

D.2-1
 total cost of the investigation and (2) a separate budget breakout detailing the work
effort and procurement costs (e.g., travel, equipment, consumables, etc.) associated
with executing the ground-based observing component of the investigation (see
Section 1.3.1). Proposals that do not satisfy this requirement will be penalized, even
to the extent of being declined and not considered for funding, regardless of their
intrinsic merit rating.
• Proposals to this program element require a data management plan (DMP) or an
explanation of why one is not necessary given the nature of the work proposed
within the 15-page Scientific, Technical, and Management section of the proposal.
The mandatory minimum requirement is making the data behind figures and tables
available electronically at the time of publication, ideally in supplementary material
with the article. However, ADAP proposals that involve the development of new
databases, data products, or data analysis tools for the community must satisfy the
more rigorous requirements described in Section 1.3.3. Specifically, any proposal for
which Astrophysical Databases is identified as either the primary or secondary
research area must include a clear description of the products, and how those
products will be disseminated to the community. More information on the data
management plan is available in the SARA DMP FAQs . 28T

1.2 Research Objectives

The Astrophysics Data Analysis Program (ADAP) solicits research with a primary
emphasis on the analysis of NASA space astrophysics data that are archived in the
public domain at the time of proposal submission. Most of these data have undergone
considerable reduction and refinement by way of calibrations and ordering and
extensive data analysis software tools often exist for these data. Table 1 below provides
a representative list of projects/missions that were either NASA-led or had a significant
NASA contribution and which may serve as the primary data source for an ADAP
proposal. Please note, Table 1 does not represent an exhaustive list of ADAP-compliant
missions. However, researchers with proposal concepts based on the analysis of data
from a mission or project that is not listed in Table 1 are encouraged to contact the
ADAP Program Officer before writing their proposal to confirm that their planned data
source is compliant with this program element. Proposals for which the primary
emphasis is the analysis of data that are not compliant with this solicitation will be
declined and may be returned without review and/or adjectival rating (see Section 1.3).
Analyses of data from non-Astrophysics NASA space missions (e.g. NASA Planetary
Science missions or NASA Heliophysics missions) are eligible for ADAP support,
provided that (1) all such data are available in the public domain at the time of ADAP
proposal submission, and (2) the primary scientific goals of the investigation fall within
the scope of NASA's Astrophysics program as described in NASA's 2018 Strategic Plan
(Strategic Objective 1.1, p. 10-13) and the Science Mission Directorate’s 2020 Science
Plan, for example, data collected by NASA Planetary Science missions and made
available through NASA's Planetary Data System (PDS) are suitable as the primary
basis of an ADAP proposal providing they meet the foregoing requirements. In any such
case, the onus is on the proposer to make a convincing case for the relevance of the
proposed work to NASA's astrophysics goals in their proposal.

D.2-2
Most NASA space astrophysics data may be found in one or more of the following
NASA astrophysics archives:
• High Energy Astrophysics Science and Analysis Data Center (HEASARC
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ );
28T 28T

• Infrared Science Archive (IRSA http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/ );

28T 28T

• Keck Observatory Archive (KOA http://nexsci.caltech.edu/archives/koa/ )

28T 28T

• Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST http://archive.stsci.edu/ );

28T 28T

• NASA Exoplanet Archive (including the data holdings of the Exoplanet Follow-up
Observing Program (ExoFOP) system; http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/
28T 28T

• NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/ );

28T 28T

• NASA Astronomical Virtual Observatory (NAVO;

https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/vo/summary/).
Table D.2-1. A Representative List of Projects/Missions that were NASA-led or had a
Significant NASA Contribution and may serve as the Primary Data Source for an ADAP
Proposal
Chandra X-Ray Observatory** Midcourse Space Experiment (MSX)
Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory Neutron star Interior Composition
(CGRO) Explorer (NICER)
Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array
Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
(NuSTAR)
Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE) Planck
Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer
Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT)
(FUSE)
Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope** Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE)
Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) Spitzer Space Telescope
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared
Herschel Space Observatory
Astronomy (SOFIA)
Hubble Space Telescope** Suzaku (Astro E2)
Hitomi (Astro-H) Swift
Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite
Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS)
(TESS)
International Gamma-ray Astrophysics
Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS)
Laboratory (INTEGRAL)
X-ray Multi-Mirror-Newton (XMM-
International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE)
Newton)*
Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer
Keck Observatory Archive (KOA)
(WISE)
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
Kepler and K2
(WMAP).
* - includes U.S. co-investigators on select foreign-led Guest Observer (GO)
investigations; see Section 1.3.4 for details and restrictions.
** - mission data compliant only in conjunction with the analysis of data from one or
more other NASA space astrophysics missions; see Section 1.3.2 for details.

D.2-3
Prospective proposers should be aware that considerable research has already been
done using NASA space astrophysics data sets by the original mission science teams,
as well as by previously selected participants in the ADAP (see, for example, abstracts
of currently and previously funded ADAP projects by following links to Past Selections
and searching for ADAP at http://nspires.nasaprs.com ). Therefore, ADAP proposals
28T 28T

should clearly demonstrate how their proposed research extends the frontier of
knowledge or how their proposed data products differ from those currently available in a
fundamental and important manner. If a new proposal for this program element is itself
S

based on a previously funded research effort, the proposal must identify that work and
clearly summarize all significant results from it. [Removed March 16, 2022]
S

NASA recognizes and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive scientific,
engineering, and technology communities and fully expects that such values will be
reflected in the composition of all panels and teams including peer review panels
(science, engineering, and technology), proposal teams, science definition teams, and
mission and instrument teams.
1.3 Scope and Limitations of the Program
As stated in Section 1.2 above, the overarching requirement of the ADAP is that any
NASA space astrophysics data involved in a proposed investigation must be available in
the public domain at the time of the proposal submission deadline. As a direct
consequence of this requirement, proposed investigations may not anticipate future
public data releases. The scientific case for any proposed investigation must be based
on - and executable with - data that are in the public domain at the time of the original
proposal. Moreover, for proposals involving the analysis of higher-level data products
from a NASA mission, it is NOT sufficient that the level-1 data are publicly available; it is
the data products that will actually be used in the investigation that must be publicly
available. Any proposal found to violate the capstone data availability requirement of the
ADAP will be ruled noncompliant and will not be rated or considered for funding. The
only exception to this requirement is described in Section 1.3.4 below.
As stated in D.1 the Astrophysics Division does not anticipate awarding contracts in
response to proposals submitted to this program element because it would not be
appropriate for the nature of the work solicited. Awards to non-governmental
organizations are expected to be grants or cooperative agreements, as appropriate.
Several other requirements/limitations of the ADAP are described in Sections 1.3.1 –
1.3.7 below.
1.3.1 Use of theory, modeling, or other relevant data
In support of any ADAP proposal – but only as a secondary emphasis and only as
needed to interpret and analyze NASA’s archival data – the proposed research may
include the use and application of: (a) theoretical research or numerical modeling; (b)
existing data from ground-based telescopes or suborbital platforms; and/or (c) available
laboratory astrophysics data. However, in any such instance, the onus is on the
proposer to clearly establish that the data and/or models in question are used only
insofar as necessary to accomplish the analysis of approved NASA archival data and
are not themselves the primary object of the investigation.

D.2-4
Requests for the support of new ground-based observations are acceptable under the
ADAP provided that the requests are clearly described, that the observations are
integral to the success of the proposed ADAP effort, and that the proposal includes an
explicit statement that the collection and analysis of those data will account for no more
than 25% of the total work effort and cost of the proposed investigation by NASA. Any
such proposals must include a summary of the work effort (in terms of personnel time
commitment) and the budget justification must include a breakout of the other direct
costs, e.g., procurements, equipment, consumables, and travel, allocated to executing
the ground-based observing component of the investigation. Furthermore, the degree to
which the success of the proposed investigation depends on the collection of new
ground-based observations, and the perceived likelihood that the proposer will be able
to obtain the needed telescope time through the normal time allocation committee
process, will be taken into consideration as part of the evaluation of the scientific merit
of the proposal. Consequently, proposers should make clear in their anonymized
proposal document whether access to the necessary facilities has already been granted
or, if not, provide a rationale for why such access can reasonably be expected.
1.3.2 Analysis of data solely from Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra X-Ray
Observatory, or Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope
Proposals for archival research based exclusively on the data from Hubble Space
Telescope (HST), Chandra X-Ray Observatory (CXO), or Fermi are not eligible for
funding under the ADAP. Such proposals are solicited through the associated NASA-
chartered science operations centers and funded under each mission’s General
Observing (GO) program. However, proposals for archival research that involve a
combination of data from these observatories, or data from one of these observatories
in combination with the data from other NASA missions (e.g., see above list), are
eligible for funding under ADAP. In such cases, the onus is on the proposer to clearly
establish that the cited additional data set(s) are integral to the success of the proposed
investigation and not merely window dressing added only to make what is essentially a
Hubble/Chandra/Fermi archival research program compliant with the ADAP.
1.3.3 Astrophysical databases and development of new data products/analysis tools
Databases of fundamental atomic, molecular, nuclear, and solid-state parameters that
are complete, critically evaluated, and readily accessible to the community represent a
powerful tool for analyzing NASA space astrophysics data. The ADAP, therefore,
accepts proposals for the development of publicly accessible compilations of existing
fundamental atomic, molecular, and nuclear parameters (both experimental and
theoretical), as well as the associated computational tools necessary to effectively apply
those data to the analysis of astronomical observations. This opportunity is intended to
support only the development of new databases or significant enhancement/
maintenance of existing databases. Proposers are cautioned that new measurements or
calculations of fundamental atomic, molecular, nuclear, or solid-state parameters are
not eligible for support under the ADAP, and proposals found to include any such work
will be declared non-compliant and declined without review. Proposals of this type are
more appropriate for the Astrophysics Research and Analysis program (APRA; ROSES
program element D.3).

D.2-5
In addition, recent years have seen a dramatic growth in both the size and scope of the
archival astronomical data from NASA’s space missions. The development of new
archival data products through reprocessing or further processing of these datasets, as
well as the development of tools for mining the vast reservoir of information they
contain, have the potential to open new areas of investigation and substantially increase
the scientific return on those missions. Consequently, such work is also eligible for
funding under the ADAP, provided that both the science it will enable and the wider
impact/value of the resultant products to the community, is clearly articulated in the
proposal.
Of special note, the Astrophysical Databases research area (see Section 1.4) accepts
proposals for the development of publicly accessible databases of observational data
from NASA-sponsored astrophysics suborbital (balloon-borne, sounding rocket,
CubeSat) experiments. However, proposals for the analysis of non-public data from
suborbital missions should be submitted to the APRA Program. Furthermore, only
suborbital experiments funded under the auspices of the APRA program are eligible for
this funding opportunity.
An essential component of any activity funded under the Astrophysical Databases
research area of the ADAP is the ultimate dissemination of high-value data products
and data analysis tools to the astronomical community. Consequently, it is essential that
any proposal identifying Astrophysical Databases as either the primary or secondary
research area must include within its 15-page Scientific, Technical, and Management
section a Data Management Plan that clearly describes the final products of the
investigation, and how those products will be made available to the community.
Although not strictly required, the use of open-source code in tools/algorithms
developed as part of an ADAP investigation and the subsequent public release of those
tools/algorithms is strongly encouraged and is often cited as a strength in the proposal
evaluation. If the products are to be ingested and curated at an existing astrophysics
archive (see list in Section 1.2 above), the cost of any required support for the proposed
activity from the relevant archive must be included in the proposal budget. Proposers
are also strongly encouraged to include a letter of acknowledgement from the NASA
archive in the separate “Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized” document (see
Section 2).
1.3.4 Support for U.S. Co-Investigators on Foreign-led XMM-Newton GO Proposals
U.S. Co-Investigators on foreign-led XMM-Newton GO proposals that are selected for
execution and rated as either Category A or Category B are eligible to propose for
funding under ADAP even if the associated observations have not yet been executed,
or the data are not yet available in the public domain. However, in such circumstances,
the (foreign) PI must designate a U.S. PI for the investigation, and only that individual
will be eligible to propose for ADAP funding prior to the public release of the data. The
designation of the U.S. PI must be established by inclusion of a letter from the foreign PI
on institutional letterhead. Failure to include such a letter will result in the proposal being
declared non-compliant. This letter should be included in the “Expertise and Resources-
Not Anonymized” document. Please note- this waiver does not apply to U.S.-led
Category A or Category B proposals (which are funded under the auspices of the XMM-
Newton U.S. Guest Observer Facility), or to any XMM-Newton GO proposals rated as

D.2-6
Category C.
Proposers seeking funding support for an approved foreign-led GO program are not
relieved of the responsibility to provide a compelling proposal that meets all of the
requirements of the ROSES-2022 NRA and the ADAP program element. It is generally
not sufficient to simply submit the approved GO proposal.
1.3.5 Citizen Science Investigations
Proposals for the analysis of NASA space astrophysics data through a citizen science
effort are permitted under the ADAP. Proposals for investigations involving a citizen
science component will be reviewed along with other ADAP proposals in the research
area most appropriate to their science goals (see Section1.4) and shall be held to the
same rigorous standards for scientific merit, NASA relevance, and cost realism as any
ADAP science investigation, i.e., documented project goals must include advances in
science, the merit of which shall be determined by peer review.
1.3.6 Exclusions
Proposers to this NRA should note that the ADAP is not intended to support:
• Investigations whose primary emphasis is exoplanet science. This includes
archival investigations focused on the formation, evolution, detection, or
characterization of protoplanetary and debris disks, exoplanets, exoplanetary
systems, or on determining the demographics of the exoplanet population. Such
research is now supported under NASA’s Exoplanets Research Program (XRP;
ROSES program element F.3).
• Investigations whose primary emphasis is fundamental theoretical research or the
development of numerical models without specific application to the analysis of
NASA archival data or where archival data are used only to calibrate or benchmark
the output of the computations. Such research is supported under NASA’s
Astrophysics Theory Program (ATP; ROSES program element D.4);
• Investigations involving new measurements or calculations of fundamental atomic,
molecular, or nuclear parameters. This includes analysis or reanalysis of data
measured in a laboratory. Such research is supported under the Laboratory
Astrophysics element of NASA’s APRA Program (ROSES program element D.3);
• Investigations with a primary focus on the analysis of datasets from astrophysics
projects or space missions that had no significant NASA contribution (e.g.,
Hipparcos, Gaia, Sloan Digital Sky Survey). Such data may be used to support the
analysis of allowed data from a NASA mission, but may not itself be the primary
object of the investigation. In any such instance, the onus is on the proposer to
clearly establish that analysis of any proscribed data is (1) necessary to the
achievement of the scientific goal(s) of the proposed investigation and, (2) not the
object of that investigation;
• Investigations using data from NASA space astrophysics missions to advance our
understanding of the origin, evolution, and characteristics of objects within the Solar
System. In particular, proposers are cautioned that studies of Near Earth Objects
and other Solar System bodies based on archival WISE and/or K2 data are not
eligible for funding under the ADAP. Planetary science investigations using the data
from NASA space astrophysics missions are eligible for funding through the

D.2-7
 Research and Analysis (R&A) programs of NASA’s Planetary Science Division (see
Appendix C);
• Investigations using data from NASA space astrophysics missions to advance our
understanding of the Sun and its impact on our Solar System. Such research is
eligible for funding through the Research and Analysis (R&A) programs of NASA’s
Heliophysics Division (see Appendix B);
• Investigations involving the validation, verification, or characterization of hardware
(including detectors). Such work must be proposed under the APRA program
element (ROSES Program Element D.3);
• Proposals primarily for the general education and/or training of students (Note,
however, that this does not preclude the involvement of undergraduate or graduate
students in the proposed research);
• Proposals for organizing and/or hosting scientific meetings. Such activities may be
proposed under NASA’s Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences
solicitation (TWSC; ROSES program element F.2); or
• Proposals for the acquisition of substantial computing facilities or resources beyond
nominal workstation or network requests.
1.3.7 Proposal formatting: further considerations
In addition to falling within the scientific scope of the ADAP as described in this
solicitation, proposals must conform to the proposal formatting requirements set forth in
Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation (e.g., page limits, acceptable font
28T 28T

sizes, line spacing, margins, etc.). These requirements have been developed to ensure
a level playing field for all proposers. The Astrophysics Division takes these formatting
requirements seriously, and proposals found to violate them will be penalized even to
the extent of being ruled noncompliant and not considered for funding, regardless of
their perceived merit. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that their proposal
complies with all formatting requirements.
Proposers are reminded that it is the PDF version of their proposal in NSPIRES that will
be judged for compliance. Since, in rare cases, translation of PDF documents can alter
the formatting of a document, proposers are strongly urged to download copies of any
documents they upload to NSPIRES to ensure that they still conform to all formatting
requirements.
1.4 Identification of Proposal Data Set(s) and Research Areas
The Cover Page for ADAP proposals provides for designation of the data set(s)
proposed for analysis and also for the Research Area, as defined below, which
designates the primary focus of the proposal. Identification of the appropriate Research
Area is important as it facilitates the assignment of each proposal to the appropriate
review panel (a secondary Research Area may also be designated).
NASA reserves the right to reassign a proposal to a different primary or secondary
Research Area for the purposes of arranging for the most qualified review. The nine
defined ADAP Research Areas are:
1. Interstellar Medium and Star Formation - includes studies of dense molecular
clouds, star-forming clouds, HII regions, interstellar dust and ices, protostars and

D.2-8
 YSOs, and the physics and chemistry of protostellar disks; also includes
characterization of supernova remnants and the dynamics of their interactions with
the ISM; does not include protoplanetary and debris disks, or the formation of
exoplanets and exoplanetary systems (see Section 1.3.7).
2. Stellar Astrophysics - includes studies of the structure and evolution of main
sequence stars, stellar variability and activity, binary/multiple stars,
asteroseismology, the IMF of stellar populations, and stellar archaeology; does not
include detection and characterization of exoplanets and exoplanetary systems
(see Section 1.3.7).
3. Post-Main Sequence Stars - includes studies of the structure and evolution of post-
main sequence stars, late circumstellar outflows and mass loss, white dwarfs and
cataclysmic variables, and planetary nebulae.
4. Collapsed Objects and Transient Phenomena - includes studies of neutron stars
(ns), stellar-mass black holes (bh), and X-ray binaries (both ns and bh); also
includes Gamma-Ray Bursts, mergers (ns-ns, ns-bh, bh-bh), and fast radio bursts.
5. Supernovae - includes studies of supernova progenitors, the physics of
catastrophic stellar explosions, supernova-driven nucleosynthesis, and validation
of supernovae as standard candles; does not include studies of supernova
remnants and their interaction with the interstellar medium (Research Area 1) or
supernova surveys as tools for cosmology (Research Area 8).
6. Normal Galaxies and Galactic Structure - includes studies of the formation,
evolution, and structure of the Milky Way and other galaxies.
7. Active Galaxies and Quasars - includes studies of interacting galaxies, starburst
galaxies, Luminous/ultraluminous infrared galaxies, Seyfert galaxies, radio
galaxies, active galactic nuclei and supermassive black holes, and quasars.
8. Large Scale Cosmic Structures - includes studies of clusters of galaxies, galaxy
environment and evolution, intracluster medium, diffuse x-ray background, and
supernova surveys as tools for cosmology.
9. Astrophysical Databases - includes development of databases of fundamental
atomic, molecular, solid state parameters and the tools to apply them to the
analysis of astronomical data; also includes development of new data products
through further processing or reprocessing of existing archival astrophysical data
sets, new publicly-accessible databases of observations from NASA suborbital
astrophysics projects, and new data analysis tools.
2. Specific Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Proposals
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members
on the review panel, the reviewers are not told the identity of proposers until after the
evaluation of Merit (see below). The overarching objective of dual-anonymous peer
review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit of a proposal.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so p roposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines
33T

for Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page

D.2-9
for this program element that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual- 33T

anonymous peer review . 3 3T

The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as t he NSPIRES 33T 33T

"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and 2) proposers must upload a separate " Expertise and Resources - Not
33T 33T

Anonymized " document, that contains all of the personally (and organizational)
33T 33T

identifying information.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit, without
taking into account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after
the evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the "Expertise
and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The panel will assess the qualifications
of the team in order to allow the reviewers to assess the team capabilities required to
execute a given proposed science investigation.
The requirements for preparing and submitting proposals under the dual-anonymous
peer review process are summarized in Table 2.
Table D.2-2. A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals (reproduced
from the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document).
Item Requirement
Anonymization Proposals must be anonymized.
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal Summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and first page of
uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page Limits 15 pages for the central Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal. An additional page is allotted for the
Proposal Summary, see above.
Biographical Sketches Do not include in the anonymized proposal document. This
information is gathered in the separate “Expertise and
Resources - Not Anonymized” document (see below).
Current and Pending Do not include in the anonymized proposal document. Include
Support in separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document (see below).
Redacted Budget and Include both in proposal document in an anonymized format.
Budget Narrative
Summary of work Include an anonymized version (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
effort, including Table the main proposal document. Include a not-anonymized
of Work Effort version in separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in
equipment the separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized

D.2-10
 proposal should address the need for and capabilities of 0T 0T

facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research

in an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions
of facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with
facilities are to be included in the separate "Expertise and
Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Letters of Resource Do not include in main proposal document. Include in the
Support (e.g., from separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
archives, facilities, etc.) document.
Data Management All proposals must include an anonymized Data Management
Plan Plan within the 15-page Scientific, Technical, and
Management section of the proposal. The Data Management
Plan for proposals that identify Astrophysical Databases as
either the primary or secondary research area must meet the
requirements described in Section 1.3.3.
Letters or Statements All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Computing Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate "Expertise Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
and Resources - Not document provides:
Anonymized" 1. A list of all team members, their affiliations and roles (e.g.,
document PI, Co-I, collaborator), and their contributions to the work;
2. Brief descriptions of the scientific and technical expertise
each team member brings, emphasizing the experiences
necessary to be successful in executing the proposed
work.
3. A description of the contribution that each team member
will make to the proposed investigation.
4. A discussion of specific resources (“Facilities and
Equipment”, e.g., access to a laboratory, observatory,
specific instrumentation, etc.) that are required to perform
the proposed investigation.
5. The not-anonymized Table of Work Effort;
6. Biographical Sketches/CVs for the PI and all Co-Is on the
proposal (limit 2 pages for the PI, 1 page for others);
7. Statements of Current and Pending Support for the PI and
all Co-Is;
8. A discussion of any specific resources that are key to
completing the proposed work;
9. Letters of commitment from any archives, specialized
facilities, foreign institutions, etc. that will support the

D.2-11
 proposed investigation;
10. A letter from the foreign PI identifying the U.S. PI on the
XMM GO investigation (required for U.S. PIs seeking
ADAP support for participation in Foreign-led XMM-
Newton GO investigations; see Section 1.3.4).

3. Current Profile of the ADAP

3.1 Response to the Previous ADAP solicitation
A total of 217 proposals were submitted in response to the ADAP 2021 solicitation, a
number that is consistent with past solicitations when one considers the recent change
in scope of the program (archival exoplanet science investigations moved from the
ADAP to the XRP under ADAP 2020). The distribution of those proposals over the
various research areas covered by the program is shown in Figure 1, below. Also
shown in the figure is the distribution of requested funding durations of the proposals in
each Research Area (i.e., one-, two-, or three-years).

Figure 1. The distribution of ADAP 2021 proposal submissions, broken down

by requested funding duration, across the Research Areas covered by the
program. The bold number at the top of each column gives the total number of
proposals submitted in the corresponding research area.

D.2-12
3.2 Distribution of annual funding levels for ADAP tasks
With an annual budget of around $22M, the ADAP typically supports around 120
investigations in any given year (that includes both new starts and continuing
investigations). Although the average annual ADAP award is approximately
$155,000/year, actual award amounts span the range from less than $50,000 per year
to more than $250,000 per year. Figure 2 shows the distribution of annual awards for
the ADAP in FY 2022.

Figure 2. The distribution of annual awards for funded ADAP tasks in FY 2022.
Data include both ADAP 2021 new starts and ongoing tasks from previous
solicitations.

4. Summary of Key Information

Expected program budget for first
~$6.0M.
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
~40-50. Also, see Section 3.2 and Figure 2.
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years; shorter-term proposals are welcome
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
28T 28T 28T 28T

propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
28T 28T 28T 28T

Planning date for start of

January 1, 2023
investigation

D.2-13
Page limit for the central
Science-Technical-Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the
Proposal Summary. See also Table 1 of ROSES.
This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation .
28T 28T
See D.1 The Astrophysics Research Program
Overview and Table 1 of ROSES .
28T 28T
See NSPIRES Online Help , Sections 3.22-4.4 of
28T 28T
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
28T 28T
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
28T 28T
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
28T 28T
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
28T 28T
NNH22ZDA001N-ADAP
Douglas M. Hudgins
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0988
Email: Douglas.M.Hudgins@nasa.gov
28T 28T
D.2-14
D.3 ASTROPHYSICS RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
NOTICE: Amended October 5, 2022. The mandatory NOI due date for
D.3 Astrophysics Research and Analysis has been deferred to
November 4, 2022. The proposal due date remains unchanged at
December 15, 2022. Also, as part of making the Inclusion Plan
language uniform and consistent among all Astrophysics elements
that require an Inclusion Plan, the Inclusion Plan language in Section
2.7 has been replaced in its entirety. Finally, there will be a Webinar
for APRA proposers on the addition of Commercial Suborbital
Platforms Tuesday, October 11 at 1:00 pm Eastern Time. See the
Webinar information PDF posted under "Other documents".
Amended August 31, 2022. Major revisions have been made to the text
of the suborbital sections, and there is a new requirement for
suborbital proposals. The changes were too numerous to be shown in
the document. Instead, a succinct list of the changes is provided in
the paragraph below. The due dates are unchanged: Mandatory NOIs
are due October 21, 2022, and proposals are due December 15, 2022.
A suite of new-generation commercial suborbital platforms is
available at no additional cost, in addition to the traditional NASA-
provided suborbital platforms. To accommodate this development,
much of Section 1.2.1 has been rewritten.
Significant changes include:
• New requirements for Suborbital investigations to be carried on
balloons or suborbital rockets are: 1) An NOI-stage Payload
Requirements Document (PRD) must be uploaded as an attachment
with the mandatory Notice of Intent. A template PRD may be found
under other documents on the NSPIRES page for this program
element. 2) a final PRD must be included in any such proposal; see
Section 1.2.1.
• The text on Suborbital Overview and Capabilities now includes
language to describe the addition of commercial suborbital
platforms, including links to further information about all platforms.
• The text on Suborbital Proposal Guidelines and Requirements now
includes information about the new required Payload Requirements
Document.
• The Suborbital Investigations Budget text has been clarified to
specify that no launch costs will be seen by peer reviewers.
• Section 1.2.1.2 on High-Altitude Balloons now includes the new
commercial capabilities with web links for more info, and also a
general description of combined new capabilities.
Original Notice: New in APRA in 2022 is the category Astrophysics
U.S. Participating Investigator, for NASA-funded researchers to
participate as Co-Investigators on a space flight or suborbital-class

D.3-1
 mission, instrument, experiment, or technology demonstration that is
being sponsored by an agency other than NASA, see Section 1.2.5.
This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan Pilot
Program; see Section 2.7. This required Inclusion Plan section will not
be part of the adjectival rating nor will it inform selection
recommendations for this opportunity.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview
The Astrophysics Research and Analysis Program (APRA) solicits basic research
proposals for investigations that are relevant to NASA's programs in astronomy and
astrophysics and includes research over the entire range of photons, gravitational
waves, and particle astrophysics. Awards may be for up to four years’ duration (up to
five years for suborbital investigations), but shorter-term proposals are typical; four-year
or five-year proposals must be well justified. APRA investigations may advance
technologies anywhere along the full line of readiness levels, from Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) 1 through TRL 9. The TRL definitions are articulated in detail in
NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirement (NPR) 7123.1C Appendix E
(updated on February 14, 2020,
https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7123_001C_&page_na
me=AppendixE). The emphasis of this program element is on technologies and
investigations that advance NASA astrophysics missions and goals.
1.2 Categories of Proposals
Proposals relevant to the APRA program are those that address the best possible
(i) state-of-the-art detector technology development that is directly applicable to
incorporation in future space astrophysics missions; (ii) science and/or technology
investigations that can be carried out with instruments flown as suborbital-class
payloads on balloon-borne, sounding rocket, CubeSat, or other platforms; or (iii)
supporting technology or laboratory research that are directly applicable to space
astrophysics missions. Accordingly, proposals are solicited in the following five broad
categories:
• Suborbital/Suborbital-class Investigations
• Detector Development
• Supporting Technology
• Laboratory Astrophysics
• Astrophysics U.S. Participating Investigators
Specific Considerations and Exclusions:
• Investigators proposing stand-alone detector development, including detector
development that features a ground-based demonstration component, should
propose to the Detector Development category, whereas proposals for which
detector development is integrated into a suborbital/suborbital-class flight project
should be submitted to the Suborbital Investigations category.

D.3-2
• Suborbital/suborbital-class proposers must upload a NOI-stage Payload
Requirements Document (PRD) along with the mandatory Notice of Intent (NOI),
allowing NASA to make a NOI-stage launch provider assessment.
• The Laboratory Astrophysics category of this program element includes theoretical
investigations that support the determination of fundamental atomic, molecular,
nuclear, and solid-state parameters with relevance to NASA Astrophysics missions
(see Section 1.2.4). However, all other theoretical investigations are solicited
separately under the Astrophysics Theory Program described in program element
D.4 of ROSES, when it is solicited.
• This program element excludes proposals for investigations that are in scope of
the Exoplanet Research Program (XRP; program element F.3 of this ROSES
NRA). Specifically, this exclusion is for Laboratory Astrophysics, data analysis
method, or other algorithm/software development investigations that are focused
upon measurements or techniques related to characterizing the properties of
exoplanets, protoplanetary disks, or debris disks. Potential proposers developing
science cases in these areas are directed to program element F.3. Investigations
that advance technology development for exoplanet space missions or conduct
suborbital-class experiments that advance exoplanet science, remain appropriate
for the APRA program.
• The APRA program element is no longer intended to support ground-based
observations except in the context of maturing future space flight hardware by
demonstrating detector and/or supporting technology advancement.
• The APRA program accepts proposals in any of the five categories listed above
that focus on tests of fundamental physics using space-based assets in order to: 1)
conduct tests of fundamental laws of physics or 2) develop experimental concepts
and/or related technologies to test fundamental laws of physics. Proposals
submitted for this purpose must be related to an Astrophysics space project
(suborbital, orbital, lunar, etc.). This discipline area is not intended to support
applied physics or laboratory experiments. Investigations predominantly theoretical
in nature should be directed to the Astrophysics Theory Program or to other
Federal agencies, as appropriate.
• Projects directed mainly toward the analysis of archival data are solicited under the
Astrophysics Data Analysis Program described in Program element D.2 of this
ROSES NRA.
• If a proposal is offered as a direct renewal of a previous NASA award, it should
include a description of the predecessor effort, including any significant findings,
and describe how the proposed work extends the previous accomplishments. See
Section 3.5 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers for more details.
• The Principal Investigator (PI) institution is expected to fund paid participants via
subawards, except for those at Government laboratories, including NASA Centers
and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). However, the proposed budget must
explicitly include the funding required for participating Co-Investigator(s) at
Government laboratories, including NASA Centers and JPL.
• By default, all proposals must include a data management plan (DMP) compliant
with the specifications provided in Section 1.2 of D.1, The Astrophysics Research
Program Overview. Projects that are devoted to technology development efforts

D.3-3
 and which will not generate scientific data may satisfy the requirement for a data
management plan (DMP) by simply noting in the separate 2-page DMP section of
the proposal (See Section 1.2 of D.1, The Astrophysics Research Program
Overview), that a DMP is not required because the proposed projects are in the
Detector Development or Supporting Technology category. Proposals submitted in
the categories of Suborbital Investigations, Laboratory Astrophysics, or
Astrophysics U.S. Participating Investigators are always required to provide data
management plans. Note that the data under consideration need not include the
raw data generated during a project, but at a minimum are any processed data
needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-reviewed publications (such
as data underlying graphs, images, spectra, and tables) and associated data and
software necessary for the replication/reproduction of published results.
• Proposals to advance detectors or supporting technologies, other than for data
analysis methods, in support of strategic missions that have transitioned to having
funded technology lines or missions that are in Phase A or beyond (e.g., Athena,
LISA, Ariel/CASE, COSI, Roman, Euclid, XRISM) are excluded from APRA, as
these technologies are expected to be supported by the mission funding.
Technology development for potential future Explorers or Probe-class missions is
allowed within APRA.
1.2.1 Suborbital/Suborbital-class Investigations
■ Overview and Capabilities
This APRA category supports and focuses on science investigations and/or technology
development utilizing payloads flown on a variety of suborbital platforms that include:
high-altitude balloons, reusable suborbital rockets, sounding rockets, CubeSats, or
similar-class payloads flown as flights of opportunity. Suborbital investigations provide
unique opportunities, not only for executing intrinsically meritorious science
investigations, but also for advancing the technology readiness levels of future space
flight detectors and supporting technologies and preparing future leaders of NASA
space flight missions, such as early-career researchers and graduate students.
The utilization of suborbital platforms for scientific investigations and technology
demonstration offer numerous advantages and opportunities that allow investigators to:
1. Collect scientific data from a space or near-space environment that cannot be
readily replicated by ground-based instrumentation, and/or collect in-situ
scientific data of particular space environments or phenomena
2. Evaluate the performance and feasibility of payloads within relevant
environments that cannot be readily replicated through ground-based testing
3. Collect performance data to advance the overall Technology’s Readiness Level
(TRL)
4. Refine the experiments/technologies in order to significantly reduce technical
risks and help ensure success of future missions
In an effort to complement and augment the capabilities available via the NASA-
provided suborbital vehicle portfolio, SMD has incorporated a suite of commercial
suborbital capabilities into ROSES-22 that jointly offers APRA researchers additional
platform flexibilities, expanded capabilities and higher flight cadence. This initiative will

D.3-4
enable researchers to readily and simultaneously leverage resources via the traditional
NASA-provided suborbital vehicles and NASA-contracted commercial suborbital
providers, both of which include unique high-altitude balloon platforms, sounding
rockets and reusable rocket-powered vehicles. Proposers are welcome to consider
proposing innovative investigations to take advantage of these platforms in order to
increase the scientific yield and impact of the proposed research. NASA expects this to
enable flying smaller payloads, with a commensurate decease in cost, that take
advantage of these capabilities at a higher cadence, provided that proposals are of
sufficient merit. Ultimately, this expanded suborbital platform suite will enable greater
scientific yield and impact from the proposed research.
In summary, APRA is now offering suborbital launch vehicle services by means of the
NASA Sounding Rocket Program Office (SRPO)
https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/srpo.html; the NASA Balloon Program Office (BPO);
https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code820/index.html; and NASA-contracted commercial
suborbital flight services through the NASA Flight Opportunities (FO) Program
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/flightopportunities/flightproviders of the
Space Technology Mission Directorate. CubeSat opportunities are also available and
are described in Section VIII(c)(vii) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
■ Suborbital/Suborbital-Class Proposal Evaluation Criteria
As indicated in Section 2.8, below, for Suborbital/Suborbital-class Investigations, in
addition to intrinsic scientific merit, the evaluation of Merit also includes the degree to
which it advances the technology readiness level of a detector or supporting technology
and, secondarily, the degree to which it advances the readiness of early-career
researchers or graduate students to assume leadership roles on future NASA space
flight missions. Investigators should identify, on the proposal cover page, which of these
three is the main focus of the proposal: science investigations, technology development,
or training of early-career scientists and engineers. See Section 2.8.
■ Suborbital/Suborbital-Class Proposal Guidelines and Requirements
Proposers incorporating flight opportunities must ensure alignment with the following
guidelines and requirements:
- Proposals must follow the suborbital flight guidelines specified in Section VIII(c) as
detailed in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
- Investigators are strongly urged to discuss their proposed payload with the contact
person(s) for the appropriate Program, specified in Section VIII(c) as detailed in the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
- A NOI-stage Payload Requirements Document (PRD) must be uploaded along with
the mandatory Notice of Intent for any proposal for a suborbital payload (i.e., not a
CubeSat). The NOI-stage PRD will allow NASA to make a preliminary launch provider
assessment and provide the correct platform-specific PRD for the proposal stage. The
NOI-stage PRD will include questions like:
• Type of suborbital vehicle (either high-altitude balloon or rocket-powered
vehicle)
• Approximate payload dimensions (width, height, length) [m]

D.3-5
 • Approximate payload mass [kg] and power [W]
• Launch location(s)
• Flight date requirements
• Desired minimum altitude
• Desired duration for microgravity / observation
• Requirement for exposure to vacuum conditions (yes/no)
• Requirements for pointing
- MS Word and PDF versions of a blank NOI-stage PRD are downloadable from under
"Other documents" on the NSPIRES page of this program element. It is understood
that the answers to the questions will be best-effort estimates at the time of
submission of the NOI. This brief and simplified PRD will allow NASA to perform an
initial assessment on potentially compatible flight platforms (NASA-provided and/or
NASA-contracted commercial vehicles) to provide, where appropriate, feedback on
the flight vehicle(s) that might be the best match to aid development of a full proposal.
- Full proposals for the suborbital (i.e., not CubeSat) investigations are required to
include a comprehensive Payload Requirements Document (PRD). The
comprehensive PRD will be made available to researchers under “Other documents”
on the NSPIRES page of this program element. The PRD is to be placed immediately
following the Inclusion Plan, and will not count against the page limit. NASA plans to
provide a platform-specific PRD to proposers in response to the information provided
with the mandatory NOI. The PRD will be used by NASA to evaluate the proposed
flight test plan and flight provider. The content of the PRD is not used to establish any
portion of the scientific and technical merit of the proposed investigation. Please note
that while proposers might express a provider preference, NASA reserves the right to
assign the flight provider.
- Researchers requesting suborbital flight opportunities using NASA-provided platforms
(either traditional sounding rockets or balloons, or NASA-procured commercial
suborbital platforms) are not required to obtain quotes or cost-estimates for the
requested suborbital/suborbital-class flight services, nor should the cost of the
platform be included in the budget. CubeSat proposers should refer to Section 1.2.1.3
for the approach to providing launch cost estimates. SMD will provide funding for any
required launch services.
- Proposers may negotiate their own launch services (i.e.: non-BPO, SRPO, FO or
CubeSat programs) as part of their proposal (so-called Proposer-Provided commercial
Suborbital Launch Vehicles – PPSLVs), in which case the PI is responsible for all
aspects of that service contract including its full cost (see Section VIII. (b)(c)(iv) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
- Suborbital payloads may be recovered, refurbished, and re-flown in order to complete
an investigation.
- Investigations involving a NASA-provided sounding rocket or balloon flight with unique
requirements must obtain a letter of mission feasibility from the relevant program office
point of contact (listed in Section VIII(c) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation).
Unique requirements include, but are not limited to, remote launch campaigns and

D.3-6
 constraints on the time/date of launch. The mission feasibility letter must be included
in the proposal submission in the “Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support”
section, where it does not count against the proposal page limit.
- Proposals with a total proposed cost of over $10M must be submitted to the
Astrophysics Pioneers program element of ROSES if they are compliant with that
element (that is, not a sounding rocket).
- Questions about suborbital/suborbital-class investigations should be directed to the
main point of contact for this program (see Section 3)
■ Suborbital/Suborbital-Class Data Management Plan
A discussion of the plans for management and for reduction and analysis of the data
must be included in the proposal. Moreover, the data management plan (DMP) outside
of the page-limited S/T/M part of the proposal must present a plan for making the
science data that derives from the investigation publicly available for the long term, in an
appropriate archive, such as (but not necessarily) one of the Astrophysics data archives
listed at http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/astrophysics-data-centers/. The cost of this
archiving activity shall be included in the overall proposal cost, although any funding for
NASA’s archives would be provided directly to the archive rather than as a subaward
from the PI institution. PIs are advised to contact the archive (e.g., MAST:
https://archive.stsci.edu/new-mission-partnerships-with-mast, IRSA:
https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/irsa-dataQA.html, HEASARC:
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/heasarc_req_mission.html or other archive
such as National Space Science Data Coordinated Archive (NSSDCA):
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nssdc/submitting_data.html) in advance of proposal
submission to obtain a suitable cost estimate. PIs not proposing to archive data in an
extant NASA data archive must describe the plan for making data durably findable,
usable, and available. The adequacy of the DMP will be part of the evaluation of the
merit of the proposal and, even if an investigation is selected, should the DMP not
satisfactorily present the plan for archiving the science data, the award will be delayed
until a satisfactory revised DMP is submitted. For details of the scope and requirements
of a DMP (and some examples) please see:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/dmp-faq-roses/ and references therein.
Although most APRA awards are three or four years in duration, proposals to develop a
completely new, highly meritorious suborbital/suborbital-class investigation through its
first flight are frequently five years in duration. Because of the anticipated greater
degree of complexity, the Scientific/Technical/Management section of proposals for
suborbital (and Suborbital-class) investigations may be 20 pages long, instead of the
default 15 pages specified in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
■ Suborbital/Suborbital-Class Investigation Budgets
As is standard for ROSES, proposals should not include costs of salary, fringe, or
overhead anywhere in the uploaded "proposal document" PDF that will be seen by peer
reviewers; see section IV(b)iii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the ROSES
budget FAQ for examples. The separately uploaded "Total Budget" for Suborbital
investigations must include all aspects of the proposed investigation, typically (but not

D.3-7
always) including payload development and construction, instrument integration and
calibration, and data analysis and dissemination/archiving. However, there are two
distinct approaches to budgeting for launches, as described in Case (A) and (B) below:
Case A – NASA-Provided Traditional Platforms or NASA-Procured IDIQ Commercial
Platforms: No flight services costs are to be included on the proposal PDF that will be
seen by peer reviewers, or on the NSPIRES cover page, or in the “Total Budget” file.
These costs are already known and separately budgeted for by NASA.
Case B – CubeSats or Proposer-Provided Suborbital Launch Vehicles (PPSLVs): In the
uploaded proposal PDF that will be seen by peer reviewers, no flight services costs
should be included. However, these costs must be included in the “Total Budget” and on
the NSPIRES cover page in Section F line 5, 8, or 9, which are not seen by peer
reviewers.
The number of investigations that can be supported is limited and heavily dependent on
the funds available to this program. It is allowable to propose suborbital-class
investigations to APRA that do not consist of an entire investigation, defined as a new
start through flight and data analysis and archiving, within the maximum five-year period
of performance. Investigations that would not complete within the proposed period must
make clear what portion of the entire investigation is being proposed and what portion is
being deferred to a later proposal and should provide rough estimates for schedule and
budget for the deferred portion. The proposal review will consider the merit of the
complete investigation, but will also consider the value of only the portion being
proposed as a meritorious precursor for the entire investigation. Note that SMD does
not carry reserves to accommodate any cost overrun incurred by a particular
investigation, including the loss of the payload owing to a rocket or balloon system
failure. Therefore, failure to achieve the proposed goals within the proposed time and
budget could require either descoping the initially proposed investigation, delaying it,
canceling a particular launch date opportunity, or canceling the investigation altogether.
■ Suborbital/Suborbital-Class Investigation Procedural Requirements
NASA considers suborbital and suborbital-class investigations to be research and
technology projects governed by NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.8.
Accordingly, such investigations should expect to be required to present a Project Plan
(cf. § 4.2.7 of NPR 7120.8A), comprising an agreement on implementation approach,
resources, cost, reviews, schedule, and other plans, in order to be approved to proceed
from the formulation phase to implementation phase. Typically, this will be required of
new investigations during the second year after initiation of funding. Should review of
the Project Plan identify significant challenges (in, for example, cost, schedule or
technology maturity) a Cost and Continuation Review (CCR) may be held. Outcomes of
the CCR may include termination of the project or continuation with a revised baseline.
For purposes of tailoring NPR 7120.8, the ‘program manager’ shall be the appropriate
point-of-contact as listed in this program element (or that person’s successor) and the
‘project manager’ shall be the PI of the investigation or a person selected by the PI for
this role; issuance of an award shall be considered as Authority to Proceed and hence
the beginning of formulation. At the end of each project year, the project manager shall
submit an annual report to fulfill the role of a Continuation Assessment, with the final

D.3-8
one being considered to fulfill the submission for Project Closeout, unless otherwise
documented in the Project Plan.
1.2.1.1 Payloads on Rocket-Powered Vehicles
Numerous sounding rocket platforms and rocket-powered suborbital reusable launch
vehicle (sRLV) services are currently available by means of both NASA-provided
platforms and commercial IDIQ flight providers. Collectively, these enable access to
vehicles capable of reaching altitudes between approximately 80-1400 km, attain over 3
minutes of continuous microgravity, allow for either a protected pressurized environment
or full exposure to space conditions, and also allow for payload ejection. This class of
vehicles typically allow for payload recovery & reuse. For additional information on
available platforms and corresponding technical capabilities, proposers are encouraged
to consult the resources available through the NASA Sounding Rocket Program
(https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sounding-rockets/index.html) and the NASA
Flight Opportunities IDIQ commercial flight providers
(https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/flightopportunities/flightproviders). For
clarity, IDIQ Entry-Descent-Landing (EDL) type vehicles will not be considered for
suborbital/suborbital-class investigations.
1.2.1.2 Payloads on High-Altitude Balloons
Multiple High-Altitude Balloon (HAB) platforms are available by means of both NASA-
provided platforms and commercial IDIQ flight providers through the NASA Balloon
Program Office (https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code820/index.html) and NASA Flight
Opportunities IDIQ commercial flight providers
(https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/flightopportunities/flightproviders).
Combined, these enable access to balloon platforms capable of reaching altitudes of up
to 49 kilometers, carry payloads weighing up to 3,600 kg, offer station-keeping
capabilities and also great flexibility regarding flight time requirements, ranging from a
few hours up to months at a time.
Suitably small payloads can be selected into a rideshare configuration with other larger
payloads or on a common shared platform for carrying multiple, independent,
piggyback-like instruments that provides services such as communication and power.
This flexibility allows SMD to offer balloon flight opportunities to more users. Balloon
missions are conducted at altitudes ranging from 29 to 49 kilometers depending on
science requirements and total suspended weight being carried. The NASA-provided
traditional platforms and NASA-procured commercial IDIQ providers also allow for
flexible remote launch locations. The NASA-provided traditional opportunities
accommodate science requirements and length of the data gathering window as shown
in the table below.

D.3-9
 Flight Duration: Launch location:
6-24 hours Ft. Sumner (fall annually, spring on occasion)
Palestine (summer – lighter payloads)
1-2 days Alice Springs, Australia†
3-7 days Kiruna, Sweden†
30-100 days Wanaka, NZ†
3-30 days Antarctica (annually)
† One non-Antarctic overseas campaign annually, with location based on prevailing needs
Projects work with NASA and/or the commercial providers in order to identify telemetry,
power, safety, pointing, recovery, and other support requirements. Prospective
proposers should consult the resources available through the NASA Balloon Program
Office and NASA Flight Opportunities for more information to help guide their proposal.
Projects needing unique engineering and/or technical support services, including flights
outside the continental United States, and/or vehicles and/or the Wallops Arc-Second
Pointing System (WASP), should contact the Balloon Program Office directly for an
estimate of the Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) cost to the proposer for the
desired support.
1.2.1.3 CubeSat Payloads
CubeSats are described in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation Section VIII(c)vi.
Proposals for CubeSats in sizes from 1U to 12U (2×2×3) are permitted under APRA.
All launch costs and spacecraft integration costs for secondary payloads will be covered
by NASA and managed by NASA's Launch Services Program (LSP). However,
proposers must contact a representative listed in Section VIII(c)(vi) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation to obtain a cost estimate for planning purposes, which shall be
included in the submitted budget. Proposers should plan that launch for CubeSats be
via the NASA rideshare program for secondary payloads. Payloads are expected to
adhere to containerized CubeSat standards; investigators are strongly urged to discuss
issues regarding constraints, launch opportunities, and other technical matters on
prospective investigations with:
Florence Tan
Phone: (202) 358-0058
Email: florence.w.tan@nasa.gov
Because of the availability of frequent launch opportunities, it is anticipated that the
majority of the selections will be for investigations that would be delivered to moderately
inclined low Earth orbit (LEO) at 400km-600km, geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO),
or Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO); other orbits (including low inclination LEO and cis-
lunar) are allowed provided the case is made that launch opportunities as a secondary
payload with an SMD primary mission could reasonably be expected. See the SmallSat
Virtual Institute (S3VI) Launch Portal for information on currently planned SMD launches
which may have the capacity for rideshare payloads. Proposals must include a CubeSat
Mission Parameters Table (see Summary of Solicitation) and clearly indicate both the
D.3-10
desired and the acceptable range of orbital parameters needed to meet mission
objectives. Both the launch service cost and the likelihood of manifesting the CubeSat
will be considered in the selection decision.
1.2.1.4 Special Instructions for Multiple-Institution Proposals for
Suborbital/Suborbital-class Investigations
Proposals for suborbital and suborbital-class investigations often involve the
development of payloads that require major hardware collaborations among several
organizations. In such cases, the lead Principal Investigator (PI) shall propose a direct
subcontracting arrangement between his/her organization and the Co-Investigator (Co-
I) organization(s) other than U.S. Government organizations, in which case all the
nominal instructions in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers (see further below) apply.
The activities of Co-Is at U.S. Government organizations, such as NASA centers, are
always funded directly by NASA, and thus their portion of the budget must be clearly
delineated in the PI proposal budget. If the PI is from a U.S. Government organization,
Co-Is will be funded by subawards made from that organization. NASA centers apply no
overhead cost to the budgets for Co-I organizations. The proposed budget must
explicitly include the funding required for participating Co-Investigator(s) at U.S.
Government organizations, including NASA Centers and JPL, unless the effort of those
organizations is contributed (in which case a Letter of Commitment is required).
Participants on a proposal whose contribution is essential to the success of the
investigation, but who are at a non-U.S. institution, must be designated as "Co-
Investigators" and must provide a Letter of Commitment from their institution. The
allowance for "Co-Investigator Proposals" for suborbital and suborbital-class
investigations has been removed.
1.2.2 Detector Development
This APRA category solicits investigations that either advance our understanding of the
fundamental operational aspects of detectors or develop new types of detectors to the
point where they can be proposed in response to future announcements of flight
opportunities. Either new measurement concepts or methods to improve the
performance of existing detectors may be proposed, provided they would be candidates
for use in space. Among the characteristics typically desirable in space-quality detection
systems are high sensitivity to relevant signals, low mass, low sensitivity to particle
radiation, low power consumption, compactness, ability to operate in a vacuum (such
that high-voltage arcing is minimized), vibration tolerance, ease and robustness of
integration with instrumentation, and ease of remote operation, including reduced
transient effects and ease of calibration.
This category does not support development of detectors or instrument subsystems that
are intended primarily for ground-based astronomy. However, observing with ground-
based facilities may be proposed to verify new detectors or overall system performance,
if adequately justified as an integral part of a detector development.
Proposals for new detectors will be evaluated in the context of currently available space
astronomy detector technologies. Proposers are encouraged to identify potential
mechanisms that could facilitate transfer of these detector technologies to other users,

D.3-11
including Homeland Security, National security, and/or the private sector, for possible
application beyond the immediate goals of NASA's programs.
1.2.3 Supporting Technology
This APRA category supports investigations of technologies not yet ready for
incorporation into new detector or space mission systems, but that offer promise of
potential breakthroughs that could lead to future advances in instrumentation useful for
NASA’s space astronomy and astrophysics programs. This category includes small
technology efforts for future NASA Astrophysics missions, such as development of
optics, mirrors, coatings, or gratings, and for enabling technologies for ground-based
support that would be essential and timely for a future NASA mission. In this last case,
proposals will be peer reviewed as usual and additionally assessed by the Program
Officers to determine whether NASA has a compelling interest in the technology;
proposers are encouraged to contact the most relevant Program Officer in advance of
submission of the proposal.
This category also supports proposals for development of new data analysis methods or
other algorithm/software development for future NASA astrophysics missions (i.e., those
not yet listed in Table D.2-1 of the ADAP program element in ROSES-2022). These
proposals should be mission enabling or mission enhancing and directly applicable to
future space flight missions, in particular (but not necessarily limited to) those that have
been considered in the most recent decadal survey or Astrophysics roadmap. Proposals
aimed primarily at carrying out mission concept studies are excluded.
1.2.4 Laboratory Astrophysics
The Laboratory Astrophysics category of the APRA program element supports the
determination of fundamental atomic, molecular, nuclear, and solid-state parameters
that are essential for analyzing and interpreting the data from NASA Astrophysics
missions. The category supports both laboratory (experimental) and computational
efforts to explore the spectroscopic properties of atoms and molecules and particulate
matter, as well as their chemical, physical, and dynamical properties under
astrophysical conditions. The resulting data products directly impact our understanding
of a wide range of astrophysical phenomena spanning the electromagnetic spectrum,
and ranging from the epoch of reionization and the evolution of cosmic structure through
the formation and evolution of galaxies and stars, up to the processes we see in the
local universe at the current epoch.
Laboratory Astrophysics proposals must be well motivated by a detailed description of
the relevance of the proposed investigation to the analysis of measurements from
NASA astrophysics missions (past, current, or future). Such proposals pertaining to
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) or the X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission
(XRISM) would be particularly timely. Proposals for projects that aim to produce data
products for wide use across the astronomical community should explain how those
products would be made available to the intended users in a stable fashion.
Proposals to the Laboratory Astrophysics category may include a request for upgrades
to and/or replacement of laboratory equipment in support of the proposed investigation.
To be considered for such support, a one-page justification must be included with the

D.3-12
proposal, immediately following the Scientific/Technical/Management section. This
justification is not counted against the S/T/M overall page limit. Currently, based on the
resources available, such requests can be up to $75K per proposal and may be spread
across no more than two of the proposed funding years. Equipment requests will only
be considered as part of a Laboratory Astrophysics science investigation proposal.
Evaluation of the overall proposal will be based on the main proposal with a separate
evaluation of the equipment request. Selection of the main proposal will be made on the
basis of its merit alone, without the equipment request (and hence that equipment must
not be required for successful completion of a meritorious investigation). The additional
selection of the equipment request would then be made on the basis of its merit in (a)
improving the outcome(s) or effectiveness of the proposed investigation, (b) its
suitability to enable other investigations, and (c) cost reasonableness. Requested
equipment costs must be included in the overall proposal budget in the NSPIRES cover
sheets. The basis of estimate for the equipment costs must be provided in the Budget
Justification section. Since the equipment request is a severable part of the proposal,
these costs must be clearly demarcated in the tables provided in the detailed
appendices to facilitate the possibility of selecting the main proposal without the
equipment request.
1.2.5 Astrophysics U.S. Participating Investigators
This category solicits proposals for science investigations in which U.S. investigators
participate as a Co-Investigator (Co-I) for a space flight or suborbital-class mission,
instrument, experiment, or technology demonstration that is being built and flown by a
sponsor agency other than NASA, and which participation clearly and demonstrably
enhances the scientific output of the mission and would result in scientific outcomes
within the broad goals of NASA’s Astrophysics Division, would benefit the U.S. scientific
community, and would enable the U.S. astrophysics science community access to a
highly valued scientific data set. Investigations requiring the provision of flight hardware
are not solicited through this program element. This program element solicits
investigations pertaining only to missions that have not launched at the time of
submission, and missions to which NASA has made no other commitments.
A proposed investigation as an Astrophysics U.S. Participating Investigator (APRA-
USPI) on a non-NASA space mission may be as a Co-I for an instrument, experiment,
or technology demonstration that is being built and flown by a sponsor agency other
than NASA. The Co-I role may include, but is not limited to, instrument design, modeling
and simulation of the instrument’s operation and measurement performance, calibration
of the instrument, scientific analysis and/or research of the data returned, and/or
development of innovative data analysis techniques. An APRA-USPI team member may
also serve as a member of a non-NASA space mission science or engineering team
and participate in science team activities, such as mission planning, mission operations,
data processing, data analysis, and data archiving.
Regardless of the nature of the APRA-USPI role, an investigation proposed under this
category must be for an astrophysics science investigation, must include some
meaningful data analysis component and archiving of the data for use by the U.S.
science community (see below), and must result in the publication of science results in

D.3-13
the peer-reviewed literature. All aspects of the investigation through publication must be
within the proposed cost.
Proposed investigations must include plans for archiving data such as raw data,
reduced data (Level 2), instrument calibration data, observation geometry ancillary data,
and derived products at an appropriate NASA Astrophysics data archive. A Data
Management Plan detailing this is a required element of the proposal and will be
evaluated as part of Merit. NASA expects that the mission sponsor will enter into an
agreement with NASA to assure that data returned from at least those aspects of the
mission in which NASA support is involved, if not the entire mission, will be made
available to the U.S. research community in a timely fashion.
For individual investigators, the cost for selected proposals is expected to be on the
order of $125K per selected investigation per year through the prime science mission
phase, plus one year for additional data analysis and archiving for the baseline scientific
investigation. For a team of investigators, the cost is expected to be on the order of
$125K per investigator per year, up to a maximum combined team total of on the order
of $1M per year, through the prime science mission phase, plus one year for additional
data analysis and archiving. Proposals should be written to justify the scientific merit
and the work plan for the entire duration of the proposed investigation. This may be no
more than through the prime science mission, plus one year for additional data
archiving for the baseline scientific investigation. However, the budget in the cover
pages of the proposal should cover this entire period or the five years allowed by APRA,
whichever is less. Proposers must submit a high-level budget for any years beyond five
as part of the budget justification.
In addition to the requirements given in ROSES, all proposed investigations must also
demonstrate: (1) their formal relationship with the sponsoring agency’s mission (e.g.,
selected participant, invited participant, or proposed participant); (2) the status of the
mission within the sponsoring agency including the level of commitment that the
sponsoring agency has made to complete development; (3) a description of the type
and the characteristics of the data from this investigation, as well as any ancillary
science data, that will be archived as part of this investigation; the status of any data-
sharing discussions with the mission team; and a description of the arrangements and
resources included in the proposal to ensure the timely delivery of the necessary data in
the required format; and (4) a detailed explanation of how the U.S. astrophysics science
community benefits from this participation. The proposal must provide supporting
documentation for item (2) above, including documenting that the NASA commitment for
U.S. participation via this opportunity is required by the sponsoring organization prior to
December 2025. Projects requiring commitment after this date should anticipate being
eligible for proposals in future ROSES cycles.
For APRA-USPI proposals, the evaluation of "intrinsic merit" includes the following
factors: (1) Compelling nature and scientific priority of the proposed investigation's
science goals and objectives; (2) Programmatic value of the proposed investigation to
NASA Astrophysics activities, including the benefits to the U.S. Astrophysics science
community; (3) Likelihood of scientific success; (4) Merit of the instruments and mission
design for addressing the proposed investigation's science goals and objectives; (5)

D.3-14
Merit of the data analysis, data availability, and data management plan; and (6)
Probability of science team success.
NASA reserves the right to make no APRA-USPI selections if there are no proposals of
appropriate merit.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 General Information
Table 2.1 provides the amount of Year-1 funding and the number of investigations that
have been selected for the four APRA categories in five recent cycles; note that
proposals for APRA-15 (denoted A-15) were due in 2016 and funded in FY 2017, etc.
through A-18; in A-20 proposals were due in 2020 and funded in FY21. If the budget
allows, it is expected (but cannot be guaranteed) that the selections in the coming year
will be similar.
Table 2.1 Funding and number of investigations selected by APRA category
APRA Total allocated to first year of new Number of New Selections
Category selections [$M] (excluding Co-I proposals)
A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-20 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-20
Suborbital
6.4 6.8 7.9 8.0 10.4 13 13 9 10 12
Investigations
Detector
3.5 4.1 4.6 4.7 5.7 13 12 14 12 11
Development
Supporting
4.0 2.1 2.6 3.0 3.5 12 7 12 10 11
Technology
Laboratory
1.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.8 10 11 8 8 9
Astrophysics
Note that the new Laboratory Astrophysics equipment initiative allotment is included in
the 2020 selection allocations.
2.2 Student Participation
The participation of graduate students is strongly encouraged, especially if the project
can be concluded within the nominal tenure of graduate training. In such cases, brief
details of the educational goals and training of the participants should be included in the
proposal. Specific factors that will be considered when evaluating a proposal’s intrinsic
merit include the degree to which it advances the readiness of early-career researchers
or graduate students to assume roles in advancing NASA’s strategic objectives.
2.3 Request for reviewer names
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of up to
five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is or stand to benefit financially from the selection (or
otherwise) of the proposal. This information should be included in the program specific
data question in the Notice of Intent, or emailed to the relevant Program Officer listed
below.

D.3-15
2.4 Proposal Submission Requirement: Mandatory NOIs
To facilitate the early recruitment of a conflict-free review panel and ensure that
proposals are submitted to the appropriate category, an NOI is required in advance of
proposal submission to this program element. Proposals that are not preceded by an
NOI will be returned without review. No feedback will be provided in response to the
NOI.
After NOI submission, the PI may request to reassign that role only to listed Co-Is, and
proposers may request to add funded investigators. The PI making such a request must
inform the point(s) of contact identified in the summary table of key information and cc
sara@nasa.gov at least two weeks in advance of the proposal due date. Additions of
funded investigators within two weeks of the proposal deadline require explicit
permission from the NASA point of contact. Submission of an NOI does not obligate the
proposer to submit a full proposal later.
For Laboratory Astrophysics, please include a statement whether the proposal will
include an equipment request (see Section 1.2.4).
2.5 Availability of MSFC X-ray Test Facilities
The X-ray optics facilities maintained by MSFC include the X-ray and Cryogenic Facility
and Stray Light Facilities as Agency Capabilities. In the past, PIs wishing to make use of
the MSFC Stray Light Facility and/or the X-ray Cryogenic Facility included Co-I funding
to MSFC in order to fund this usage. These facilities are now supported for some of this
work by directed work packages under the NASA Internal Scientist Funding Model, so
proposers planning to request use of the MSFC facilities should contact
wayne.baumgartner@nasa.gov to discuss what portion of the request can be covered
by current support and what portion needs to be included in the APRA proposal budget.
2.6 Clarification of Proposal Content
Rules concerning the preparation and submission of proposals are provided in four
documents in the following priority order: this program element; D.1 Astrophysics
Research Program Overview; the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation; and the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. Proposers should ensure that the most recent versions of
these documents are consulted prior to proposal submission as clarifications and
amendments are made throughout the year.
As the proposals for D.3 APRA and D.7 SAT are reviewed simultaneously, it is not
necessary to include proposals submitted to either program element in the ROSES-22
solicitation in the Current and Pending section of the proposal to this program element.
If unfunded team members (including, but not limited to, those at foreign institutions) are
to provide critical portions of the investigation (required in order for it to be fully
successful), then those individuals must be listed as Co-Investigators and a letter from
an appropriate representative of their institution must be provided that illustrates and
attests to the necessary institutional or other Agency support.
The application to become a Nancy Grace Roman Technology Fellow (RTF; see
program element D.8 of this ROSES solicitation) is a one-page addendum submitted
along with an APRA proposal. To be eligible for an RTF, the applicant must be

D.3-16
designated as the PI, Science PI, or Institutional PI as their proposal role on the APRA
cover sheet, and must be shown to have a substantial, leading, and responsible role in
the proposal work plan. An applicant on a successful APRA proposal will then be
considered for designation as a Roman Technology Fellow based on this one-page
application.
2.7 Inclusion Plan [Text replaced October 5, 2022]
NASA is committed to a culture of diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility. Aligning
with NASA’s core value of inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate’s Science Plan
(see Strategy 4.1 in SMD Science Plan), SMD seeks to increase the diversity of thought
and backgrounds represented across the entire SMD portfolio through a more inclusive
and accessible environment.
To advance NASA’s core value and SMD’s plans, an Inclusion Plan, not to exceed two
pages (plus additional pages for references, as necessary) immediately following the
Data Management Plan, is required for all proposals.
Through the addition of Inclusion Plans, NASA seeks to improve equity in STEM by
asking proposers to consider ways to involve and empower historically underserved and
underrepresented groups in STEM.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to:
• identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for the
proposed investigation; 
• address ways in which the investigation team will attenuate or reduce these
barriers to create and sustain such an environment;
• discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will empower those from
historically underrepresented and underserved groups to be leaders and full
participants within an inclusionary environment where all voices are heard;
• discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will develop a diverse and
inclusive scientific workforce and clearly define roles and responsibilities for all
team members towards pursuing those goals; and
• consider the involvement of organizations and institutions that support and serve
under-represented groups including, but not limited to, Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and Other
Minority Universities.
A resource that some proposers may find useful in this regard is NASA’s Minority
Serving Institutions (MSI) Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
For the assessment of the Inclusion Plan, a peer review panel that may have a
combination of science discipline experts, social scientists, and/or experts on issues
surrounding diversity, inclusion, and equity, will be asked the following questions:
a. Does the Inclusion Plan provide adequate processes and goals for creating a positive
and inclusive working environment for the investigation team? Does the Inclusion
Plan include ways in which this positive and inclusive working environment will be
maintained? For instance, are the Plan’s metrics of success and associated
assessment plans adequate for gauging progress towards creating and sustaining
the inclusive environment? Does the Inclusion Plan demonstrate awareness of

D.3-17
 systemic barriers and ideas for removing these to create inclusive working
environments?
b. Does the Inclusion Plan adequately describe the contribution of the proposed
investigation to the training and development of a diverse and inclusive team? Does
the Inclusion Plan provide an adequate plan for achieving the identified contribution?
Is the Plan likely to be successful in realizing the identified contribution? 
c. Do the efforts in the Inclusion Plan have clearly stated goals, actions to achieve those
goals, and metrics for measuring progress during the award period?
Please note that an Inclusion Plan is not the same as public engagement efforts nor is it
the same as NSF’s Broader Impacts statement. An Inclusion Plan that describes such
efforts alone will be considered inadequate for the purposes of this assessment. If
funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, it should be included and justified in
the budget. 
Note that while the assessment of the Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival
rating for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals, funding will be
released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory Inclusion Plan is approved by
the selection official. If funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, that request
for funding should be clearly identified and justified in the budget as a separate budget
element so it can be assessed. Reviewers and proposers will be invited to provide
comments and suggestions to improve the Inclusion Plan aspect of this research
program after the review is completed.
2.8 Evaluation Criteria
All proposals with be evaluated for Intrinsic Merit, Cost, and Relevance, as defined in
Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and consistent with Section V(a) of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and D.1 the Astrophysics Research Overview
(e.g., see Section 1.2 regarding the new requirement for Data Management Plans and
Archiving). In addition, for suborbital and suborbital-class investigations (as noted in
Section 1.2.1), the evaluation of intrinsic merit will include the degree to which it
advances the technology readiness level of a detector or supporting technology, and
secondarily the degree to which it advances the readiness of early-career researchers
or graduate students to assume roles in advancing NASA’s strategic objectives. Note
that the TRL claimed in the cover sheet is for tracking purposes only, and reviewers are
not asked to assess whether that datum is valid. Finally, requests for upgrades to and/or
replacement of laboratory equipment are subject to the evaluation factors mentioned in
Section 1.2.4.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first year
See Section 2.1
of new awards
Number of new awards pending
See Section 2.1
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 4 years (5 years for suborbital investigations;
for APRA-USPI, through the end of the Prime
Mission plus one year for data analysis and
archiving.)

D.3-18
 Due date for Mandatory Notice of
Intent to propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of investigation
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Main point of contact concerning this
program
Questions about the APRA Program should be directed to the point of contact above.
Questions about specific discipline areas may be directed to the relevant Program
Officers listed below, along with their areas of expertise. If uncertain about whom to
contact, please direct your inquiries to the APRA point of contact listed above.
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Typically, October, but allowed between July
and December in the year after the proposal
due date.
15 pp (20 pp for suborbital proposals); see
also Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers.
This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
See D.1 The Astrophysics Research
Program Overview and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 2.22-
3.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-APRA
Dominic J. Benford
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (301) 758-9305
Email: Dominic.Benford@nasa.gov
D.3-19
 Name Discipline Telephone Email
Responsibility
Eric V. Infrared, (202) 358-0907
Tollestrup Submillimeter, and (202) 308-3056 Eric.V.Tollestrup@nasa.gov
Radio Astrophysics
Michael R. Ultraviolet and (202) 358-1053
Michael.R.Garcia@nasa.gov
Garcia Visible Astrophysics (202) 320-6341
Valerie X-ray and Gamma- (202) 358-1763 Valerie.Connaughton@nasa.
Connaughton ray Astrophysics (202) 578-8504 gov
Particle Astrophysics
Thomas
and Fundamental (202) 358-5162 Thomas.Hams-1@nasa.gov
Hams
Physics
William B. Laboratory (202) 358-0734
William.B.Latter@nasa.gov
Latter Astrophysics (202) 578-0222
Dominic Astrophysics U.S.
Benford Participating (301) 758-9305 Dominic.Benford@nasa.gov
Investigator

D.3-20
D.4 U ASTROPHYSICS THEORY
NOTICE: The Astrophysics Theory Program (ATP) is solicited
biennially and will not solicit proposals in ROSES-2022. ATP
proposals will be solicited again in ROSES-2023.
1. Scope of Program
U

The Astrophysics Theory Program (ATP) supports efforts to develop the basic theory for
NASA’s space astrophysics programs. Abstracts of previously selected ATP projects
may be found online at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (choose "Solicitations" then
25T 25T 25TU U25T

"Closed/Past Selected" on the left). The periods of performance of investigations for this
research element range from one to four years. Most awards have a duration of three
years, but four-year awards may be made if the need for the longer duration is
sufficiently well justified in the proposal.
The Astrophysics Theory Program does not permit multiple Principal Investigators (PIs)
(see Section IV(b)i of the Summary of Solicitation). Each proposed investigation must
be led by a single PI. The PI institution is expected to fund Co-Investigator(s) (Co-I(s))
participating via subawards, except where the Co-I is at a Government institution,
including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
The proposed work submitted for this program must both:
• Be directly relevant to space astrophysics goals by facilitating the interpretation of
data from space astrophysics missions or by leading to predictions that can be
tested with space astrophysics observations; and
• Consist predominantly of theoretical astrophysics studies or the development of
theoretical astrophysics models.
ATP proposals satisfying both of the above requirements may involve development of
data analysis methods for astrophysics missions and may incidentally include actual
data analysis as a test of the theory or the method.
Proposals to the ATP program may not:
• Consist primarily of data reduction or data analysis (such proposals should be
directed to the mission-specific programs or the Astrophysics Data Analysis
Program (ADAP) described in program element D.2 in this solicitation);
• Propose theoretical work pertaining to atomic and molecular astrophysics and
other topics directly related to Laboratory Astrophysics (such proposals should be
proposed to the Astrophysics Research and Analysis (APRA) program element
described in program element D.3);
• Develop experimental payloads to test theories of gravitation and fundamental
physics (such proposals should be submitted to the APRA program element
described in program element D.3);
• Address theoretical topics that are predominantly unrelated to the needs of NASA’s
space astrophysics programs (such proposals should be directed to other
appropriate Federal agencies);

D.4-1
 • Deal strictly or predominantly with Solar System objects or solar-terrestrial
interaction studies, including solar energetic particles (see Appendices B and C for
appropriate programs);
• Propose to develop technologies or experimental concepts for future NASA
missions (these proposals should be submitted to the APRA program element
described in program element D.3 or the Strategic Astrophysics Technology (SAT)
program element described in program element D.7);
• Propose to develop new data analysis methods for future space missions (these
proposals should be submitted to the APRA program element described in
program element D.3);
• Primarily aim at studying new mission concepts; or
• Request support for organizing and/or hosting scientific meetings. Support for such
events may be eligible for funding through the Topical Workshops, Symposia, and
Conferences (TWSC) program element F.2.
2. Point of Contact
Sanaz Vahidinia
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (949) 584 8669
Email: HQ-ATP@mail.nasa.gov
25T 25T

D.4-2
D.5 NEIL GEHRELS SWIFT OBSERVATORY GENERAL INVESTIGATOR – CYCLE 19
NOTICE: Amended June 7, 2022. New text has been added to Section
1.3.2 regarding a joint observing program with NICER. New text is in
bold. The due date remains unchanged: Phase-1 proposals are due by
4:30 p.m. Eastern Time via ARK/RPS on 09/22/2022.
Phase-1 proposals are due at 4:30 p.m. Eastern time via ARK/RPS by
the date given in Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA. Phase-1
proposals submitted to the Neil Gehrels Swift General Investigator
Program continue to be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process. See Section 2.2.2 and in the associated "Guidelines
for Anonymous Proposals" document. Due to the nature of the
proposed investigations, Swift GI – Cycle 19 proposals are not
required to include a Data Management Plan.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview
The Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory (hereafter known as Swift) General Investigator (GI)
Program solicits proposals for basic research relevant to the Swift gamma-ray burst
mission. The primary goal of this mission is to determine the origin of gamma-ray bursts
(GRBs) and use these bursts to probe the early Universe. Swift is also a valuable asset
for obtaining multiwavelength images, spectra, and light curves on interesting Targets of
Opportunity (ToOs) and other non-transient sources.
Cycle 19 observations and funding will commence on or around April 1, 2023, and last
approximately 12 months. Further details on the Cycle 19 program will be posted on the
Swift web pages (https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/proposals) in June 2022. Beginning with
Cycle 17, all Phase-1 proposals submitted to the Neil Gehrels Swift General Investigator
Program are being evaluated following a dual-anonymous peer review process.
Proposals must be accordingly prepared following the guidelines in Section 2.2.2 and in
the associated "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document.
As was the case in Swift GI Cycles 4 through 18, observing time will be made available
to scientists at U.S. and non-U.S. institutions to study a wide variety of astrophysical
sources. Consistent with Explorer Program policy, there will be no proprietary data
rights to observations conducted with Swift. All science data will be made freely
available through the Swift Quick Look web site (https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-
bin/sdc/ql), as soon as they are received and processed.
Funding through the NASA Swift GI Program is available only to scientists at U.S.
institutions who are identified as the Principal Investigators (PIs). U.S. based Co-
Investigators (Co-Is) on foreign-led proposals do not qualify for funding. Funding for
accepted target proposals will be initiated only after the relevant observations have
begun. Proposers from non-U.S. institutions are strongly encouraged to include a letter
of commitment promising financial support.

D.5-1
The Swift GI program is intended to provide the following to participating scientists:
1. Funding (U.S. GIs only) for:
• New Swift projects;
• Correlative GRB and non-GRB observations;
• Other correlative GRB projects; and
• Theoretical investigations that will advance the Swift mission science return.
2. Observations (and funding for U.S. GIs) for:
• Non-ToO observations of non-GRB targets;
• ToOs;
• Large Programs requesting more than 100 targets or more than 100 kiloseconds
(ks) total exposure time;
• "Fill-in" targets; and
• Key projects.
1.2 The Swift Mission
Swift is a Medium-class Explorer mission developed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center. The lead domestic partners include Pennsylvania State University and Los
Alamos National Laboratory. Groups in the United Kingdom and Italy made significant
contributions to the hardware development and are active participants in the operations,
including provision of the Italian ground station at Malindi. The Swift Mission Operations
Center (MOC) is at Pennsylvania State University, and the Swift Science Center (SSC)
is at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
The Swift mission was launched on November 20, 2004, from Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station, Florida. Swift was launched into a low Earth orbit with an inclination of 21
degrees and an altitude of 600 km. The baseline mission duration was two years, but
the mission has been extended beyond this initial period because of its continuing
scientific productivity. The orbital lifetime of the satellite is estimated to be approximately
20 years.
The Swift spacecraft carries three science instruments: a wide-field gamma-ray Burst
Alert Telescope (BAT) and two sensitive, co-aligned narrow-field instruments – the
X-ray Telescope (XRT) and the Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope (UVOT). The spacecraft
can be autonomously pointed to direct the XRT and UVOT toward events detected by
the BAT. The BAT is a wide-field gamma-ray imager that detects GRBs and rapidly
sends positions of arcminute accuracy to the spacecraft and to the ground. The BAT
operates in the 15–350 keV range and has a 1.4 steradian (half-coded) field-of-view.
The BAT has a GRB detection sensitivity ~2 times better than the Burst and Transient
Source Experiment (BATSE) that flew on the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory
(CGRO). In addition to detecting GRBs, the BAT is performing a survey of the hard X-
ray sky to a sensitivity of ~1 mCrab (2  10-11 erg cm-2 s-1). The BAT also scans most of
the sky each 90-minute orbit and serves as a sensitive monitor for high-energy
transients. Positions and spectra of transients detected by the BAT are telemetered to
the ground and distributed immediately to the community.
In response to GRB alerts from the BAT, the spacecraft reorients on a time scale of
~1 minute to point the XRT and UVOT instruments at a GRB or other transient. These

D.5-2
instruments perform multiwavelength measurements of the bright early afterglow (and
also later-time afterglow) emission to provide subarcsecond positions, precise
photometry, and fine spectroscopy. The XRT is a Wolter 1 grazing incidence telescope
that operates in the 0.2–10 keV band and has a field-of-view of 23.6 arcminutes with an
angular resolution of 18 arcseconds (Half Power Diameter) and positional determination
accuracy of better than 5 arcseconds. The detector is a cooled CCD, providing
spectroscopy with a resolution E/E ~10 at 1 keV and an effective area of 120 cm2. The
UVOT is a Ritchey-Chrétien folded-optics telescope operating in the 170–650 nm band.
It has a field-of-view of 17 arcminutes  17 arcminutes, with an angular resolution of 2.5
arcseconds and positional determination accuracy of 0.3 arcseconds. UVOT provides a
sensitivity to afterglows of 22nd magnitude for a 1,000 second integration in its V filter,
one of six filters for color photometry. It also has a white-light filter and two grisms for
fine spectroscopy (E/E ~ 300) of sources brighter than 17th magnitude. The narrow-
field instruments yield an accurate position and X-ray spectra of the afterglow within a
few minutes of the burst. This information is distributed immediately over the Internet.
Data from continued observations of the afterglow are made available via Circulars and
Reports on the Gamma-ray bursts Coordinates Network (GCN,
http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/) and on a public web site (https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/).
Notification of transient source detections is made through IAU Circulars
(http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/services/IAUC.html) and Astronomer’s Telegrams
(ATELs, http://www.astronomerstelegram.org/). Data from serendipitous source
detections in the field-of-view of both instruments are routinely sent to the ground for
analysis.
Further information on the Swift mission may be found at https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/.
1.3 Types of Proposals
This Swift GI Program solicits proposals in the following areas:
1. New Swift projects not requiring GI-specified observatory pointing;
2. Correlative GRB observations involving new or enhanced IR ground-based
capabilities for investigating high-redshift bursts, and other correlative GRB and
non-GRB observations involving non- Swift instruments and observatories;
3. Theoretical investigations that will advance the Swift mission science return;
4. Non-GRB non-ToO observations that benefit from Swift’s unique capability of
simultaneous multiwavelength coverage;
5. ToO observations which promise large scientific return and capitalize on Swift’s
unique capabilities of rapid repointing and multiwavelength observations;
6. Large Programs requesting more than 100 targets or more than 100 ks total
exposure time;
7. Fill-in targets to be observed in what would otherwise be gaps in the planned
science timeline; and
8. Key Projects which aim at addressing major, high-impact scientific questions by
making use of the strengths of Swift.
Starting with Cycle 17, all Phase-1 proposals submitted to the Neil Gehrels Swift
General Investigator Program are evaluated following a dual-anonymous peer review

D.5-3
process. Proposals must be accordingly prepared following the guidelines in Section
2.2.2 and in the associated "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document.
1.3.1 New Swift projects
GIs may propose to initiate their own Swift projects that supplement or enhance the
Swift science return with their unique facilities, missions, capabilities, or methods. The
extent to which the proposed research will enhance the science return from Swift and
the demands placed upon mission resources by an investigation will be considered in
the proposal evaluation process. Proposals in this category can also include changes or
additions to current Swift strategies to detect and observe GRBs and other transient
events (Swift detected or elsewhere) and can propose innovative data reduction and
interpretation methods that increase our understanding of cosmic explosions. Proposals
that require changes to Swift onboard capabilities or operational procedures may
require special scrutiny during the review process by the Swift team for technical
feasibility and may require formal approval by the Swift Configuration Control Board
before implementation. Investigators considering such proposals are strongly urged to
consult with the Swift team prior to proposal submission.
1.3.2 Swift GRB and non-GRB Correlative Observations
GRB and non-GRB correlative observations substantially augment the science return
from Swift. The Swift instruments, for example, make unique measurements of GRB
afterglows starting immediately following the burst, supernova (SN) shock breakouts, or
tidal disruption events. However, it is not possible to follow up all targets on all time
scales, since viewing constraints and scheduling conflicts will preclude some Swift
observations. Also, the onboard capability, although significant, does not cover all of the
scientifically valuable measurements that need to be made. Candidate correlative
observations that will add significantly to the Swift science include radio imaging and
photometry, spectroscopy, deep optical imaging and spectroscopy of the afterglow and
possible host galaxy, surpassing the capability of the UVOT to reach 22nd V magnitude
in 1,000 seconds, and rapid optical observations with time scales shorter than the 1-
minute Swift response time.
To foster correlative observations, the Swift project has established joint GI observing
programs with other ground- and space-based facilities: The National Radio Astronomy
Observatory (NRAO), the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the International Gamma-Ray
Astrophysics Laboratory (INTEGRAL), the X-ray Multi-Mirror Mission (XMM-Newton),
the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR), the Neutron Star Interior
Composition Experiment (NICER), and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite
(TESS). Proposals for joint Chandra, INTEGRAL, TESS, and XMM-Newton
observations must be submitted to those programs and the Swift time will be
recommended by those reviews. For NRAO observations, the Swift GI program can
award radio observations through the Swift’s joint program with NRAO. There are a
number of technical and policy details regarding the Swift/NRAO joint program, and
proposers are strongly encouraged to refer to the Memorandum of Understanding:
https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/proposals/nrao.html. [NICER added June 7, 2022]
The Swift General Investigator program can award NuSTAR observations through a
joint program with the NuSTAR mission. Observing time under this program will be

D.5-4
awarded only to proposals that require use of both observatories to meet the primary
science goals. Proposers are strongly encouraged to refer to the Swift/NuSTAR
Memorandum of Understanding, which may be found under other documents on the
NSPIRES page for this program element.
By this agreement, NuSTAR permits the Swift GI Program to award up to 300 ks of
NuSTAR observing time. The minimum NuSTAR response time to Targets of
Opportunity is 48 hours. ToO observations with a turnaround time less than one week
must be well justified and of high scientific value. NuSTAR data acquired through the
Swift GI Program will have a standard 12-month exclusive-use period commencing at
the time of receipt of the processed data by the observer. This period is restricted to 6-
months for peer-reviewed ToOs. The Swift Mission Project will make funding available
to successful U.S.-based investigators who request NuSTAR observing time through
the Swift GI process. No funds will be awarded from the NuSTAR project for joint
investigations proposed to this Swift program element.
The NuSTAR GI Program will perform feasibility checks on the proposed observations
and reserves the right to reject any observation determined for any reason to be
technically unfeasible or to jeopardize the NuSTAR mission. Such a rejection would
likely affect the entire proposed science program and could impact the award of Swift
observing time as well. Selected proposals will be allocated NuSTAR observing time
without additional scientific review, if judged technically feasible.
The Swift General Investigator program can award NICER observations through a
joint program with the NICER mission. Observing time under this program will be
awarded only to proposals that require use of both observatories to meet the
primary science goals.
By agreement, NICER permits the Swift GI program to award up to 200 ks of
NICER observing time. The minimum NICER response time to Targets of
Opportunity is 4 hours. NICER data acquired through the Swift GI Program will
have no exclusive use period. The Swift project will make funding available to
successful U.S.-based investigators who request NICER observing time through
the Swift GI process. No funds will be awarded from the NICER project for joint
investigations proposed to this Swift program element.
The NICER General Investigator program will perform feasibility checks on the
proposed observations and reserves the right to reject any observation
determined for any reason to be technically unfeasible or to jeopardize the NICER
mission. Such a rejection would likely affect the entire proposed science program
and could impact the award of Swift observing time as well. Selected proposals
will be allocated NICER observing time without additional scientific review, if
judged technically feasible. [Bold text Added June 7, 2022]
GRBs at high redshift are particularly compelling due to their distance and rely
especially on high quality infrared (IR) observations for distance estimates, since the
optical counterpart is redshifted out of Swift/UVOT’s wavelength range. To encourage
the development of rapid IR ground-based response to potentially high redshift GRBs,
special consideration will be given to such projects. Proposals to bring new or enhanced
ground-based IR capabilities online may require funding in the range of $100,000 per

D.5-5
year. Such budget requests will be considered, provided they are strongly justified. A
six-page limit for the scientific justification applies to proposals submitted in this high
redshift "Correlative Observations" proposal category.
For all correlative investigations funded by Swift, rapid public availability of the data or
results is in the interest of the Swift mission and the astronomical community and is
strongly encouraged. Public data availability for correlative studies should be discussed
in these proposals and will be considered in the evaluation of proposals.
1.3.3 Theoretical Investigations
GRB and non-GRB theoretical studies have the potential to significantly enhance the
scientific impact of the Swift mission. GI proposals for such theoretical investigations are
also solicited and should specifically address how the anticipated results will advance
Swift science objectives.
1.3.4 Non-GRB, non-ToO observations
A total of two million seconds of observing time will be made available during Cycle 19
for non-GRB, non-ToO pointed observations. Swift observations in this category will be
performed only as the result of an uploaded ground command through the normal
planning process; slewing to the target will not occur autonomously. Non-GRB/non-ToO
observations will have a lower scheduling priority than GRBs or ToOs and will be
observed on a best-effort basis when time is available in the observing schedule.
Hence, successful non-GRB/non-ToO GIs should be aware that they are not assured
100% of the time awarded. Every effort will be made to observe 80% or more of an
accepted program within schedule limitations of the mission. A single observation is
defined as one requested pointing to a target. Proposers should be aware that, due to
Swift’s low Earth orbit (95-minute orbit period) and scheduling priorities for other
objects, any long observation exceeding a few kiloseconds will be broken up into
several different pointings on different orbits. Observations longer than a few
kiloseconds (ks) might be split into several days.
Non-GRB/non-ToO proposals are subject to the following limitations:
• The requested time per observation (i.e., a single visit to a target) must be between
a minimum of 1 ks and a maximum of 40 ks;
• Monitoring programs are defined as programs requiring two or more observations of
the same object, each of which is considered a "visit;" and
• No more than 2,000 visits will be permitted in this Cycle (total for all proposal
categories, including both monitoring and non-monitoring requests).
Time-constrained observations are defined as observations that have to be performed
within a certain time window. These can be ToOs or non-ToOs, either monitoring (more
than one visit to a source) or non-monitoring observations, but not "fill-in" observations.
This includes phase-constrained proposals, coordinated observing campaigns with
ground-based or satellite-based facilities, etc. Note that the unique scheduling
requirements of Swift put severe constraints on time-constrained programs. The window
duration for time-constrained observations must exceed three hours.
For coordinated and constrained observations, it is the proposer's responsibility to
inform the Swift Science Operations Team of the observing time windows at least one

D.5-6
week before observations start. Proposers must clearly describe how their proposal
capitalizes on the unique capabilities of Swift.
Only "Key Projects" observing programs may be carried over from Cycle 19 to Cycle 20.
Regular proposal targets whose observations have commenced in Cycle 19 will be
awarded carryover time in Cycle 20 until the proposed observations are substantially
complete. GIs whose observing programs have not begun in Cycle 19 will be required to
repropose in Cycle 20 if they wish to acquire observing time. Similarly, Cycle-18-
accepted proposals that have not been initiated by the start of Cycle 19 will not be
carried over. Cycle 18 GIs concerned that their programs may not be started before the
end of the cycle should re-propose for Cycle 19.
1.3.5 ToO Observations
GIs are allowed to propose for ToOs in response to transient phenomena, including
GRBs found by other observatories. A total of at most one million seconds of observing
time will be made available to ToO proposals, subject to the constraints listed below.
Swift ToO observations will only be performed as the result of an uploaded command by
the Mission Operations Center and will not be slewed to autonomously. ToO
observations will have a lower scheduling priority than GRBs and will be observed on a
best-effort basis. Because of this restriction, successful ToO GIs should be aware that
they are not assured 100% of the time awarded, even if their ToO is triggered. Every
effort will be made to observe 80% or more of an accepted program. GIs submitting
ToO proposals should note that:
• Each proposal should describe how it capitalizes on the unique capabilities of Swift;
• Proposals must give exact, detailed trigger criteria and a realistic estimate of the
probability of triggering the ToO during Cycle 19; and
• Proposals must assign a priority to each ToO target based on the time criticality of
the observation. From the time of the trigger, the priorities are defined as
o Highest Urgency: Observation should be performed within four hours;
o High Urgency: Observation should be performed within 24 hours;
o Medium Urgency: Observation can be performed within days to a week; or
o Low Urgency: Observations can be performed within weeks.
Because new GRBs are constantly being discovered, the Swift observing schedule is
revised on a daily basis. Note that Highest Priority ToOs are particularly difficult to
handle at night and on weekends when the Mission Operations Center is not staffed.
These should be avoided in all but the most urgent cases (e.g., transient events like a
Galactic SN, a very bright GeV gamma-ray burst, or a giant soft gamma-ray repeater
flare).
It is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator (PI) of an accepted ToO to alert the
Swift Observatory Duty Scientist when trigger conditions for their accepted ToO have
been met. This is done through the Swift ToO Request Form at
https://www.swift.psu.edu/. It is highly recommended that ToO proposers register as
Swift ToO users in advance at https://www.swift.psu.edu/. Registration is required in
order to submit a ToO Request.

D.5-7
ToO proposals must have an astrophysical trigger. Once the trigger criteria have been
met for an approved target, the PI should check if the target location is more than five
hours in RA from the Sun and more than 20 degrees from the Moon before requesting
Swift observations (http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Tools/Viewing.html). ToO observations
that require more than 6 ks on a given day and are closer to the Sun than five hours RA
will be less likely to be approved unless they are of exceptionally high scientific priority.
Observations greater than nine hours in RA from the Sun are particularly desirable. The
purpose of the anti-Sun restriction for ToOs is to maximize the amount of time Swift is
pointed toward the night sky in order to optimize optical follow-up observations of BAT-
detected GRBs.
Accepted Cycle 19 ToO proposals may be triggered until March 31, 2024. GIs whose
ToO programs do not trigger in Cycle 19 will be required to re-propose in later cycles
should they wish to acquire observing time on their targets of interest. Only “Key
Projects” ToO programs will be carried over from Cycle 19 to Cycle 20, and may be
triggered until March 31, 2025.
Note that unsolicited ToO requests for exceptional transients will continue to be possible
through the Swift ToO web site, even for those not accepted into the GI Program. The
decision on whether or not to observe a ToO of either category will be made by the
Swift Principal Investigator or his official designee. Such ToO requests are unfunded.
1.3.6 Large Programs
Proposals requesting more than 100 targets or more than 100 ks total exposure time
are defined as Large Programs. A total of up to 1 Megasecond (Ms) of exposure time
has been reserved for Large Programs, subject to the submission of proposals of high
scientific merit.
Both long-duration observations of single targets, tiling of extended sources that exceed
the fields of view of the Swift XRT and UVOT instruments, or shorter duration
observations of many targets can be requested in the Large Programs proposal
category. Proposers should be aware that, due to Swift’s low Earth orbit (95-minute orbit
period) and scheduling priorities for other objects, any long observation exceeding a few
kiloseconds will be broken up into several different pointings on different orbits.
The observations proposed for Large Programs must be completed within the 12-month
period covered by this Cycle.
1.3.7 Swift "Fill-in" Targets
GIs may submit a list of targets for consideration as "Fill-in" targets. Their purpose is to
provide a set of peer-reviewed targets to be used to fill in gaps in the planned science
timeline. These must not be ToOs, must have no observational constraints, and can
only be observed once (no multiple observations of the same target). UVOT Grism
observations are not permitted as “Fill-in” observations because they require a slew-in-
place. The minimum total integration time must be 1 ks per target. Accepted targets will
be added to the Swift observing program at the discretion of the science operations
team. They will be scheduled, as needed, around the higher priority GRB follow-up
observations, ToO and non-ToO observations, to maximize the Swift science program.
Funding is not provided for Fill-In proposals. Although GIs should have no expectation

D.5-8
that their entire list of “Fill-in” targets will be observed, past experience has shown that
fill-in proposals are usually undersubscribed and do get done. Due to the nature of Swift
science planning, Swift GI “Fill-in” observations will be scheduled only about 24 hours
prior to observation, and PIs will not be notified until observations have been completed
for a given target. Scheduling information will be available to GIs via the daily observing
plan (http://www.swift.psu.edu/).
To reiterate:
• Fill-in targets are not ToOs and cannot be triggered;
• Fill-in targets cannot be time constrained;
• No monitoring is allowed with fill-in targets. Proposers cannot request multiple target
visits, but they can request more than 100 fill-in targets per proposal;
• No UVOT Grism observations are allowed; and
• Fill-in targets are scheduled at the convenience of the science planners. There is no
guarantee that any of the targets in any fill-in program will be scheduled or
completely observed in this Cycle.
1.3.8 Swift Key Projects
Key Projects are intended to greatly advance the Swift science program, enhance its
breadth of impact, and represent an enduring legacy of Swift results. Proposals in this
category may request support for new Swift projects, theoretical investigations,
observations of non-GRB non-ToO targets, and observations of ToO targets. The
proposed research plans can be carried out in one or two years. Proposals may also
request funding in the range of $100,000 per year. Such budget requests will be
considered, provided they are strongly justified.
The number of Key Projects funded in any given year will be limited. It is the
responsibility of the proposers to strongly justify how the proposed program will address
high-impact scientific questions by making use of the strengths of Swift. A six-page limit
for the scientific justification applies to proposals submitted in this "Key Projects"
proposal category.
Proposers requesting two-year projects that are selected at Phase 1 should not assume
that they have been awarded two years of support; this determination will be made at
Phase-2 of the review. PIs of approved multiyear Key Projects will be solicited for a
progress report that will be reviewed by NASA to determine if appropriate progress is
being made toward the proposed objectives. Because of the significant resources
allocated to multiyear Key Projects, those that do not make progress consistent with the
proposed investigation could be reduced or terminated.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 General Information
It is anticipated that up to $1.4M will be available through this program element for the
support of approximately 35 General Investigations of one-year duration each (except
for Key Projects). Note that additional unfunded General Investigations are likely to be
selected (for example, Fill-in proposals). Swift non-GRB pointed observations are open
to all scientists at U.S. or non-U.S. institutions. Swift GI funding is open to all individuals
who are identified as Principal Investigators and employed at U.S. institutions, including

D.5-9
Swift science team members. Scientists participating in the Swift mission, including
Associate Scientists and members of the Follow-up Team who are not funded by the
Project, are eligible for support under this GI Program. Swift science team members
who already receive support from the Project must provide a compelling justification for
the award of additional funds under the GI Program.
NASA does not anticipate awarding contracts in response to proposals submitted to this
program element, because it would not be appropriate for the nature of the work
solicited.
2.2 Proposal Submission and Evaluation
2.2.1 Submission of Proposals to the Swift GI Program
The Swift GI program uses a two-phase proposal process. A Phase-1 proposal shall
comprise the science/technical justification; proposals requesting funds need to include
a budget narrative, describing in sufficient detail how the proposed funds will be used to
achieve the goals outlined in the proposal. Only proposers whose Phase-1 proposals
are accepted will be invited to submit budget proposals in Phase 2. It is not necessary
for the PI of the Phase-2 proposal to be the science PI. Proposal content, including the
list of investigators, must remain consistent between Phase-1 and Phase-2 proposals.
All proposal materials will be submitted electronically.
The Phase-1 peer review will be executed in a "dual-anonymous" fashion, where not
only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members on the review panel, but the
reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams (see Section 2.2.2).
Awards are expected to average $35,000 per year. Only proposals in the "Key Projects"
category and in the high redshift "Correlative Observations" category may require
funding substantially above the average award (i.e., in the $100,000 range per year),
and will need to provide a detailed cost justification. The amount of the anticipated
funding request must be entered into the box provided for this purpose on the Remote
Proposal System (RPS) Cover Form. The detailed cost evaluation will be deferred until
Phase 2. The funding amount requested in the Phase-2 cost proposal may not exceed
the amount proposed in Phase 1. "Fill-in" proposals will be unfunded.
Proposers to the Swift GI Program must adhere to the following proposal submission
procedures:
• All Proposers must submit their Phase-1 proposals electronically through the
Astrophysics Research Knowledgebase (ARK)/Remote Proposal System (RPS)
website at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/. Instructions for doing so are
provided at the SSC web site, https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/;
• Target forms for all observation proposals are to be submitted through ARK/RPS;
• Due to the nature of prospective investigations within the Swift GI program, the
Scientific/Technical/Management section of proposals is limited to four pages (six
pages for high redshift "Correlative Observations" proposals and "Key Projects"
proposals), instead of the default 15 pages specified in the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers. The requirement for a table of contents in the body of the proposal is
waived.

D.5-10
• No supporting material (e.g., Curriculum Vitae, pending/current support) is required
or allowed other than what is specified in the supplemental documentation
concerning the dual-anonymous review procedure.
• Optional Latex and MS Word templates for the Scientific/Technical/Management
section are provided on the SSC web site at https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/; and
• The Scientific/Technical/Management section must be uploaded to the RPS website
as a PDF file.
All proposal materials must be submitted electronically by 4:30 p.m. Eastern time on the
due date for this program given in Section 3 in order to be included in the proposal
review for this Cycle of the Swift General Investigator program. Note that the 4:30 p.m.
deadline supersedes the deadline stated in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and in
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Instructions for the formatting and content of ROSES proposals are given in the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and, for topics not addressed there, refer to the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. Swift GI Proposers must follow these instructions, except
where they are overridden by the instructions given in the Astrophysics Research
Program Overview or in this program element.
2.2.2 Specific Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Phase-1 Proposals
The overarching objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious
bias in the evaluation of the merit of a proposal. Under this system, not only are
proposers unaware of the identity of the members on the review panel, but the
reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams.
Proposers should consult the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document in the
"Other Documents" section on the NSPIRES of this program element for instructions on
writing proposals appropriate for dual-anonymous peer review. The instructions here
and in that document supersede the default instructions given in the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers and the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposers will also be required
to upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document, which is
not anonymized. The "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document contains
complete information on how to write this separate document.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit, without
initially taking into account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only
after the evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The panel will validate the
qualifications of the team in order to allow the reviewers to assess the team capabilities
required to execute a given proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key factors for PIs to keep in mind are:
• Proposals should eliminate language that identifies the proposers or institutions, as
discussed in the Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals
• PIs are required to upload a one-page “Expertise and Resources – Not
Anonymized” PDF through ARK as a separate upload when submitting the science
justification. This document must not be anonymized.

D.5-11
 • NASA understands that dual-anonymous peer review represents a major shift in
the evaluation of General Observer / General Investigator proposals, and as such
there may be occasional slips in writing anonymized proposals. However, NASA
reserves the right to return without review proposals that are particularly egregious
in terms of the identification of the proposing team.

A summary of the key requirements for preparing anonymized Phase-1 proposals is

provided in the table below.

Item Requirement
Anonymization Phase-1 proposals are anonymized. Phase-2 (cost)
proposals are not anonymized.
Submission Phase-1 proposals are submitted through ARK/RPS.
Phase-2 (cost) proposals are submitted through
NSPIRES.
References References should be in the [1], [2] format.
Work plan Include an anonymized one-paragraph work plan in
the main body of the Phase-1 proposal.
Proposal length No change.
Separate "Expertise and This document provides a list of all team members,
Resources - Not their institutional affiliations, roles, expertise, and
Anonymized" document contributions to the work. The document should also
discuss any specific resources that are key to
completing the proposed work.
2.2.3 Evaluation of Proposals submitted to the Swift GI Program
Phase-1 Proposals will be evaluated by a peer evaluation panel with respect to
Relevance and Merit, as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
The evaluation of intrinsic merit of a proposal shall include:
• The suitability of using the Swift observatory and data products for the proposed
investigation;
• The extent to which the investigation complements and enhances the anticipated
science return from the Swift mission;
• The degree to which the proposed investigation places demands upon mission
resources;
• The degree to which the proposed investigation capitalizes on the unique
capabilities of Swift; and
• For theoretical investigations, the degree to which the investigation directly
advances Swift science goals.
2.2.4 Submission and Evaluation of Phase-2 proposals
Subject to the availability of funding, successful Phase-1 proposers will be contacted by
the Swift Program Officer and invited to submit a cost proposal in Phase 2. Upon
notification of selection of a Phase-1 proposal, a proposer must respond by following
the instructions for submitting a Phase-2 proposal given in the selection notification from
the Phase-1 review. Phase-2 (cost) proposals must be submitted through the NASA

D.5-12
NSPIRES electronic proposal website (http://nspires.nasaprs.com) by an Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR) of the proposing organization according to the
instructions in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. The cost proposal will
consist of a Budget Details (maximum of two pages) section and a Narrative section
(maximum of two pages).
NASA program personnel (as opposed to peer reviewers) will evaluate the Phase-2
(cost) proposals for cost reasonableness and compare the proposed cost to available
funds, as allowed by Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Note that since the Phase-2 proposals will not be peer reviewed, the requirement to
redact the budget information (per Section IV(b)(iii) of the Summary of Solicitation) is
waived. All costs must be included in the proposal. Proposers should note that Phase-2
(cost) proposals should not be anonymized.
2.3 Supplemental Information
Further details concerning the proposal submission requirements and process can be
found at the Swift Science Center website https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/. This website
provides a detailed mission description; technical information about the Swift mission,
instruments, and observation feasibility; and instructions for completing the required
proposal forms.

3. Summary of Key Information

Expected program budget for first
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Notice of Intent to
propose (NOI)
Due date for Phase-1 proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for Phase-1 proposals
~$1.4M Pending successful 2022 Senior Review
mission ranking.
~35
1 year; 2 years for proposals in the "Key
Projects" category
Option not available
4:30 p.m. Eastern time via ARK/RPS by the date
given in Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Funding will be awarded when the data are
made available to the PI. NASA center
proposers should use October 1 (6 months after
start of Cycle 19 observing) as a planning date
for start of funding
4 pages for all proposal categories except for
proposals submitted in the high redshift
"Correlative Observations" category and in the
"Key Projects" category, which are allowed up to
6 pages. The budget narrative has a 1-page limit
that will not count toward the above page limits.
See Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 for Guidelines for
preparing proposals for Anonymous Reviews.

D.5-13
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
Requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of Notice
of Intent to propose (NOI)
Web site for submission of Phase-
1 proposal and required forms
Web site for submission of Phase-
1 proposal via NSPIRES or
grants.gov
Web site for submission of Phase-
2 proposals
Programmatic information may be
obtained from the Swift Program
Scientist
Technical questions concerning
this program element may be
directed to:
This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
For Phase-1 see Section 2.2.2. For Phase-2 see
Section 2.2.4.
For Phase-1 see Section 2.2.1. For Phase-2 see
Section 2.2.4 and NSPIRES Online Help.
Electronic proposal submission is required in
PDF format; no hard copy is permitted.
Option not available
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/ (Help
Desk available at
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/help/)
Option not available
http://nspires.nasaprs.com; See Section 2.2
Mario Perez
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 834-0477
Email: mario.perez@nasa.gov
Brad Cenko
Swift General Investigator Program Lead
Email: brad.cenko@nasa.gov
D.5-14
D.6 U FERMI GENERAL INVESTIGATOR – CYCLE 16
NOTICE: The execution of Fermi GI – Cycle 16 is contingent upon the
outcome of the 2022 Astrophysics Senior Review of Operating
Missions.
All Phase-1 proposals submitted to the Fermi Guest Investigator
Program will be evaluated following a dual-anonymous peer review
process. Proposals must be prepared following the guidelines in
Section 2.2.2 and in the associated "Guidelines for Anonymous
Proposals" document.
Due to the nature of the proposed investigations, Fermi GI – Cycle 16
proposals are not required to include a Data Management Plan.
1. U Scope of Program
1.1 Overview U

The Fermi General Investigator (GI) program solicits proposals for basic research
relevant to the Fermi mission. The primary goal of this mission is to perform 20 MeV to
>300 GeV gamma-ray measurements over the entire celestial sphere, with sensitivity a
factor of 30 or more greater than that obtained by earlier space missions. A secondary
goal includes the study of transient gamma-ray sources with energies extending from 8
keV up to 300 GeV.
The Fermi GI program is intended to encourage scientific participation by providing
funding to carry out investigations using Fermi data, to conduct correlative observations
at other wavelengths, to develop data analysis techniques applicable to the Fermi data,
and to carry out theoretical investigations in support of Fermi observations.
The Fermi GI program also encompasses a number of joint observation program
opportunities. Fermi investigators may apply for radio, optical, X-ray, or Gamma-ray
observing time through joint programs with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory
(NRAO), the National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO), the VERITAS ground-
based Cerenkov telescope facility, the INTErnational Gamma-Ray Astrophysics
Laboratory (INTEGRAL), and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). Please
refer to Section 1.3.3 for important details.
Proposers may apply for high-end computing resources. For more information, please
see https://www.hec.nasa.gov/request/science.html .
32TU U32T

Investigators may propose Fermi pointed observations, but the capability to perform
such observations has become severely limited (see Section 1.2). Such observations
will require strong scientific justification through simulations and exposure calculations
because default survey mode observations will satisfy the scientific requirements of
most studies.
The Fermi GI program is open to all investigators, but we remind proposing
organizations that NASA funding is available only to principal investigators (PIs) who
are lawfully employed by a U.S. institution at the time the award is made to the
institution.

D.6-1
There will be no exclusive-use period associated with the data from Fermi observations.
All data will be made available through the HEASARC public data archive after ground
32T 32T

processing.
1.2 The Fermi Mission
Fermi is an international and multiagency observatory-class mission that studies the
cosmos in the 10 keV to 300 GeV energy range. The primary instrument, the Large
Area Telescope (LAT), has a peak effective area (>8000 cm 2 ), angular resolution (<3.5º
P P

at 100 MeV, <0.15º above 10 GeV), field-of-view (>2 sr), and deadtime (<100 µs per
event) that provides a factor of 30 or more advance in sensitivity compared to previous
missions. The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) also provides the capability for
studying transient phenomena, with a field-of-view larger than the LAT and a spectral
range that extends from the LAT’s lower limit down to less than 10 keV. Although
pointed observations are possible, the observatory primarily scans the sky continuously
because of the LAT’s large field-of-view. In the survey mode employed during the first
10 years of the mission Fermi provided nearly uniform sky exposure every ~3 hours.
Documents providing a more complete description of Fermi can be found at the Fermi
Science Support Center ( FSSC) website .
32T 32T

Due to an anomaly with one of the solar array drive motors in 2018, alternative sky-
survey strategies have been employed to ensure safe spacecraft operation. This leads
to exposure nonuniformity on short (~weekly) timescales but near uniformity is
eventually achieved. It also limits LAT coverage of the Sun and surrounding sky
regions. The ability to respond to Targets of Opportunity (ToOs) or, more generally, to
perform pointed observations or customized observation strategies will be very limited.
Prospective proposers considering such observations are strongly advised to consult
the Fermi Science Support Center prior to preparing their proposal. For more details,
please see https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/observations/types/post_anomaly/ .
32T 32T

The product of a collaboration among NASA, the U.S. Department of Energy, and
several international partners, the LAT is a pair-conversion telescope. Gamma rays
pair-produce in tungsten foils, silicon strip detectors track the resulting pairs, and the
resulting particle shower deposits energy in a CsI calorimeter. An anticoincidence
detector provides discrimination against the large flux of charged particles incident on
the LAT. The anticoincidence detector is segmented to eliminate the self-vetoing
problem encountered by previous experiments.
Astrophysical photons are only a small fraction of all the events detected by the LAT on
orbit. Most events are primary cosmic rays and their associated secondary charged and
neutral particles produced in the surrounding spacecraft and the Earth’s atmosphere.
Therefore, event filtering on board reduces the ~3 kHz detected event rate to ~350 Hz.
Events that survive the onboard filter are telemetered to the ground. Further ground
processing yields a "true" celestial photon average rate of about 1 to 2 Hz.
The GBM detects gamma-ray bursts. Consisting of 12 NaI(Tl) (8–1000 keV) and 2 BGO
(0.2–30 MeV) detectors, the GBM extends Fermi's burst spectral sensitivity from ~8 keV
to ~30 MeV and monitors more than 8 sr of the sky, including the LAT’s field-of-view.
Bursts are localized by comparing rates in different detectors and rapidly distributed via

D.6-2
the Gamma-ray bursts Coordinates Network (GCN). An initial location, computed
automatically, is sent within several seconds, and is expected to have an accuracy of 5
to 10 degrees for strong bursts (fluence > ~10 photons cm -2 ). A more accurate location
P P

(~3 degrees for strong bursts) is sent within 24 hours. The threshold of the onboard
trigger is a flux of about 0.7 photons cm -2 s -1 (50 to 300 keV band), for a 1-second
P P P P

burst, and uses a variety of energy band and time windows.

Fermi was launched on June 11, 2008, into a circular, initial orbit of ~565 km altitude at
an inclination of 25.6°. The original mission design lifetime was five years, with a goal of
ten years. After a checkout period, science operations began on August 4, 2008, and
Fermi has been operating in an extended mission phase since 2013. Based upon the
results of the NASA 2019 Senior Review, support for mission operations was extended
through September 30, 2022.
The GI community is supported by the FSSC, which is managed by NASA’s Goddard
Space Flight Center. All publicly available data products, software, calibration files, and
technical documents that have been developed jointly with the instrument teams are
available through the FSSC.
1.3 Types of Proposals
The Cycle 16 Fermi GI program solicits proposals in the following areas:
1. The analysis of LAT or GBM data from the beginning of science operations or
development of data analysis techniques. Investigators are encouraged, but not
required, to make software or other resources supporting such new analysis
techniques publicly available through the FSSC;
2. Requests for LAT pointed observations. Proposers should be aware that the
ability to accommodate such pointed observations has become very limited since
Cycle 11. Please see Section 1.2 and
https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/observations/types/post_anomaly/ . Pointed
32T 32T

observations will follow the same open data policy as sky survey data, i.e., they
will become public immediately;
3. Analysis of correlative multiwavelength observations with other instruments and
observatories (but excluding operation of such facilities) that are directly relevant
to Fermi science objectives (see Fermi Users Group recommendation at
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/resources/multi/ ); and
32T 32T

4. Theoretical investigations that will advance the science return of the Fermi
mission.
1.3.1 Analysis of all LAT gamma-ray and GBM event data
The LAT team’s science goals are: (1) development of event-reconstruction and
background-rejection techniques; (2) production of a comprehensive full-sky catalog of
gamma-ray sources; and (3) a description of the diffuse gamma-ray emission. Proposed
Fermi investigations should avoid duplication of the first two of these goals. The extent
to which the proposed research will enhance the science return from Fermi will be
considered in the proposal evaluation process (see Section 2.2 below).
The LAT’s primary science data product is a list of events detected within the LAT’s
field-of-view. These events can be used to detect sources and study their temporal and

D.6-3
spectral properties. Fermi observes the sky in a survey mode that provides nearly
uniform sky exposure on ~weekly timescales; this mode will suffice for most scientific
observations. GIs may request funding to analyze any accumulated data and may
receive funding even if they did not request a specific observation.
The GBM provides event lists with measured energies and arrival times, permitting both
temporal and spectral studies. In addition, binned background count rates with differing
temporal and spectral resolution are also available, enabling background studies and
source detection through occultation steps.
The GBM science team is already funded to provide the community with a catalog of
GRBs, including localizations and spectra. Proposals construed by peer reviewers as
duplicative of this goal may, therefore, be deemed to have lower priority than those
perceived as addressing other objectives.
New data analysis techniques that will maximize the mission's scientific yield are also
encouraged. While the Fermi mission will provide a set of analysis tools with which a
complete analysis of the data can be accomplished (see
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/ for details), specialized analyses to
32T 32T

address specific scientific issues, such as blind pulsar period searches, the discovery of
faint transients, or the detection of sources through occultation steps in the GBM
background light curves, may require alternative techniques and additional software. GI
proposals for such new data analysis techniques must specifically address how the
proposed techniques will advance Fermi science objectives.
1.3.2 Requests for LAT pointed observations or modified observation strategies
GIs may also request pointed observations, or in exceptional cases modified
observation strategies, to accumulate sky exposure of a particular source at a rate
higher than provided by survey mode observations. Similarly, GIs may request Target-
of-Opportunity observations. As noted in Section 1.2 the capability to support such
observations is more limited than in Cycles 1-11. It will, therefore, be incumbent upon
the proposer to demonstrate that a pointed observation is required to achieve the
scientific objectives. Please note that the observatory operations are less flexible than
has been the case in the past as a result of the solar-array-drive anomaly that occurred
in 2018 and pointed observations are rarely possible. Proposers who intend to request
pointed observations are strongly encouraged to contact the FSSC and anyone
considering modified observation strategies are required do so prior to submitting the
proposal ( http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/help/ ).
32T 32T

1.3.3 Multiwavelength observations

Because correlative observations will substantially augment the science return from
Fermi, such proposals are encouraged. Examples of correlative observations that will
add significantly to the Fermi science include monitoring of blazars, follow-up
observations of gamma-ray bursts, and determination of pulsar ephemerides. To foster
correlative observations, the Fermi project has established joint observation programs
with other ground- and space-based facilities. The Fermi GI program can award optical,
radio, X-ray, or high-energy gamma-ray observations through Fermi’s joint programs
with NRAO, NOAO, VERITAS, INTEGRAL, and TESS. Note that only a single year of

D.6-4
joint-program observations can be awarded through the Fermi GI Program regardless of
the duration of awarded Fermi support. There are a number of important technical and
policy details regarding these joint programs and prospective proposers are strongly
encouraged to refer to the respective MOUs:
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/proposals/nrao.html ,
32T 32T

http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/proposals/noao.html ,
32T 32T

http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/proposals/veritas.html ,
32T 32T

http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/proposals/integral.html, and
32T

http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/proposals.tess.html
32T 32T

At http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/policy/LAT_Monitored_Sources.html the LAT

32T 32T

instrument team will post the light curves (including spectral information) of the sources
listed. The team will also announce the discovery of high-amplitude variations among
these sources or of newly discovered bright transients to the community via
Astronomer's Telegrams and GCN notices. The FSSC will provide light curves and
locations for these new sources.
1.3.4 Theoretical investigations
Theoretical studies related to the observations conducted with Fermi hold the potential
to significantly enhance the scientific impact of the mission. GI proposals for such
theoretical investigations are also solicited and must specifically address how the
anticipated results will advance Fermi science objectives.
1.4 Classes of Proposals
There are two proposal classes: (1) Regular proposals with research plans that can be
completed in one year, and (2) Large proposals whose research plans are more
expansive and may take up to three years to complete. Large programs will remain
prioritized for projects that are inherently resource intensive and large in scope. The
number of Large projects funded in any given year will be very limited.
The burden of justifying the need for Large projects is on the proposers. The peer-
review committees will not be permitted to descope Large projects and must evaluate
them as proposed. Proposing a project in duplication as a single year plus as a Large
program is discouraged.
PIs of approved Large projects must submit a progress report annually on the Phase-1
proposal due date, rather than on the anniversary of the award date. The progress
report must comply with the page limit and format requirements of Phase-1 Regular
proposals. Progress reports should not be anonymized. It must list the deliverables
(papers, public software, etc.) that have resulted from the ongoing work, as well as
adhere to the schedule specified in the original proposal. Progress reports must be
submitted through the Astrophysics Research Knowledgebase Remote Proposal
32T

System (ARK/RPS) system . Because of the significant resources allocated to large

32T

multiyear projects, those that do not make progress consistent with the proposed
investigation could be reduced or terminated.

D.6-5
1.5 Proposal Length and Format
The page limit for the Science/Technical/Management section of Phase-1 proposals is
four pages for Regular proposals and six pages for Large proposals. These page limits
include figures and references. An additional page is required to describe the technical
justification for the observation time, as well as the telescope and instrumentation
configurations being requested through the joint programs with NOAO, NRAO,
INTEGRAL, VERITAS, and TESS.
Proposals must be single-spaced, typewritten, English-language text on standard U.S.
letter paper, using one column, and using an easily read font size 12-point or larger and
having, on average, no more than 15 characters per horizontal inch. No smaller font is
permitted in the subsections of the proposal, including references. However, text in
figures and their captions may be in fonts as small as 10-point. In addition, the proposal
shall have no more than 5.5 lines per inch of text. Pages should have at least one-inch
(2.5 cm) margins on all sides. Proposals not conforming to this format will be declared
noncompliant and may be rejected without further review.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 General Information
Awards for Regular (one-year duration) proposals or Large (one to three-year duration)
proposals are expected to fall within the guidelines specified in Section 3. Phase-2
proposals requesting funding exceeding those guidelines are unlikely to be approved
without a compelling justification.
Awards for triggered analyses (e.g., transients meeting specific criteria) will not be
released until after such triggers occur.
Only proposals led by a PI who is employed by and resident at a U.S. institution will be
considered for funding.
Fermi science team members already receiving support from the Project are eligible for
support but must provide a compelling justification for the award of additional funds
under the GI Program. It is the intent of this program that most of the available GI
funding be awarded to proposers not formally associated with Fermi.
NASA does not anticipate awarding contracts in response to proposals submitted to this
program element, because it would not be appropriate for the nature of the work
solicited.
2.2 Proposal Submission and Evaluation
2.2.1 Submission of Phase-1 Proposals to the Fermi GI Program
The Fermi GI program will use a two-phase proposal submission process. The first
phase will be the submission and evaluation of the science/technical justification.
Proposals must include a management section with a statement of work and an
estimate of the resources needed to accomplish the goals of this work. The required
proposal forms must be submitted through RPS. The Phase-1 peer review will be
39T

executed in a "dual-anonymous" fashion, where not only are proposers unaware of the

D.6-6
identity of the members on the review panel, but the reviewers do not have explicit
knowledge of the proposal teams (see Section 2.2.2).
Proposals requiring more than one year of effort (Large proposals) must include a
schedule and a list of expected deliverables and/or milestones for each year of the
requested support. This schedule will be considered in the evaluation of progress
reports prior to years two and three.
Each proposer who anticipates requesting funding must provide a budget estimate, i.e.,
an estimated maximum of the total cost to NASA (including overhead) of his/her
proposed investigation. A field for entering the total budget is provided on the RPS
Cover Form.
In the second phase, proposers whose Phase-1 proposals are accepted will be invited
to submit a Phase-2 budget proposal through their home institution. Proposers must
append, as an NSPIRES attachment, a budget narrative for each year of proposed work
and specify what they expect to accomplish at the end of each of the years proposed.
Every line item in the NSPIRES budget needs to be explained in the accompanying text.
All proposal materials will be submitted electronically.
Proposers to the Fermi GI Program must adhere to the following procedures for
proposal submission:
• Proposers will submit their Phase-1 proposals electronically through the RPS
website at: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/ . Instructions for doing so are
32T 32T

provided at the FSSC web site at: http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/proposals/ .

32T 32T

• Target lists are submitted through the RPS form. All proposals involving joint-
program correlated observations or Fermi pointed observations, must include a
target list.
• Due to the nature of prospective investigations within the Fermi GI program, the
Scientific/Technical/Management section of proposals is limited to four pages for
Regular proposals and six pages for Large proposals, instead of the default 15
pages specified in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Figures and references
are included within these four or six page limits. An additional page must be
added to describe the technical details of proposed joint gamma-ray, X-ray,
radio, or optical observing programs.
• The standard ROSES requirement for a table of contents in the body of the
proposal is waived.
• No supporting material (e.g., Curriculum Vitae, pending/current support) is
39T

required or allowed other than what is specified in the supplemental

documentation concerning the dual-anonymous review procedure.
• The Scientific/Technical/Management section will be uploaded to the RPS
website as a PDF file.
All Phase-1 proposal materials must be submitted electronically by 4:30 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date for this program given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES in order to be
32T 32T 32T 32T

considered in the proposal review for this cycle of the Fermi GI program. Note that the
4:30 p.m. deadline replaces the standard midnight deadline.
Instructions for the submission of ROSES proposals are given in the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation and, for topics not addressed there, refer to the NASA Guidebook for

D.6-7
Proposers. Fermi GI proposers must follow these instructions, except where they are
overridden by the instructions given in the Astrophysics Research Program Overview
(D.1) or in this program element.
2.2.2 Specific Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Phase-1 Proposals
The overarching objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious
bias in the evaluation of the merit of a proposal. Under this system, not only are
proposers unaware of the identity of the members on the review panel, but the
reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams.
Proposers should consult the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document in the
39T

"Other Documents" section on the NSPIRES webpage for this program element for
instructions on writing proposals appropriate for dual-anonymous peer review. The
instructions here and in that document supersede the default instructions given in the 39T

NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposers
39T 39T

will also be required to upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document, which is not anonymized. The "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document contains complete information on how to write this separate document.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit, without
initially taking into account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only
after the evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The panel will validate the
qualifications of the team in order to allow the reviewers to assess the team capabilities
required to execute a given proposed science investigation.
39T A summary of the key factors for PIs to keep in mind are:
• Proposals should eliminate language that identifies the proposers or institutions,
39T

as discussed in the Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals

• PIs are required to upload a one-page “ Expertise and Resources – Not
39T 39T

Anonymized ” PDF through ARK as a separate upload when submitting the science
39T

justification. This document must not be anonymized.

• NASA understands that dual-anonymous peer review represents a major shift in
the evaluation of General Observer / General Investigator proposals, and as such
there may be occasional slips in writing anonymized proposals. However, NASA
reserves the right to return without review proposals that are particularly egregious
in terms of the identification of the proposing team.
A summary of the key requirements for preparing anonymized Phase-1 proposals is
provided in the table below.
Item Requirement
Anonymization Phase-1 proposals are anonymized. Phase-2 (cost)
proposals are not anonymized.
Submission Phase-1 proposals are submitted through ARK/RPS.
Phase-2 (cost) proposals are submitted through
NSPIRES.
References References should be in the [1], [2] format.

D.6-8
 Work plan Include an anonymized one-paragraph work plan in
the main body of the Phase-1 proposal.
Proposal length No change.
Separate "Expertise and This document provides a list of all team members,
Resources - Not their roles, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" document The document should also discuss any specific
resources that are key to completing the proposed
work.
2.2.3 Evaluation of Phase-1 Proposals Submitted to the Fermi GI Program
Proposals will be evaluated by a peer evaluation panel with respect to Relevance and
Merit, as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. The evaluation
of intrinsic merit of a proposal shall also include:
• The suitability of using the Fermi observatory and data products for the proposed
investigation;
• The extent to which the investigation enhances the anticipated science return from
the Fermi mission;
• The degree to which the proposed investigation places demands upon mission
resources (this is particularly relevant for pointed observations); and
• In the case of Progress Reports (i.e., requests to continue multiyear projects),
demonstrable progress towards the stated milestones of the original science
proposal. Progress Reports should not be anonymized.
For development of analysis methods, correlative observations or theoretical
investigations, the evaluation criteria of a proposal shall include the degree to which the
investigation directly advances Fermi science goals.
2.2.4 Submission and Evaluation of Phase-2 proposals
Subject to the availability of funding, successful Phase-1 proposers will be contacted by
the NASA Selecting Official and invited to submit a cost proposal in Phase-2. Upon
notification of selection of a Phase-1 proposal, a proposer must respond as follows:
• Follow the instructions for submitting a Phase-2 proposal given in the selection
notification from the Phase-1 review. Phase-2 (cost) proposals must be
submitted through the NASA NSPIRES electronic proposal website
( http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ ) by an Authorized Organizational Representative
32T 32T

(AOR) of the proposing organization.

• The total budget may not exceed the budget estimate the proposer provided in
the Phase-1 proposal.
• Budget Details are limited to three pages, and the Budget Narrative is limited to
two pages. Any substantive changes from the budget management plan already
submitted in Phase-1 must be justified explicitly.
NASA program personnel (as opposed to peer reviewers) will evaluate the Phase-2 cost
proposals against the third evaluation criterion, cost realism and reasonableness, and
will also compare the proposed cost to available funds, as allowed by Section V(a) of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Note that since the Phase-2 proposals will not be
peer reviewed, the requirement to redact the budget information (per Section IV(b)(iii) of

D.6-9
the Summary of Solicitation) is waived. All costs should be included in the proposal.
Proposers should note that Phase-2 (cost) proposals should not be anonymized.
2.3 Supplemental Information
Further details concerning the proposal submission requirements and process can be
found at the Fermi Science Support Center website http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/ . This
32T 32T

website provides a detailed mission description; technical information about the Fermi
mission, instruments, and feasibility of different types of observations; and instructions
for completing the required proposal forms.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected budget and number of new The selection of ~35 Regular proposals with
awards pending adequate proposals average awards of $75K and generally less
of merit. than $80K per year, and 1-2 Large proposals
with average awards of $125K per year and
generally less than $150K per year. Deviations
from these targeted figures are possible.
Maximum duration of awards 1 year for Regular proposals and up to 3 years
for Large proposals (see Section 1.3)
Due date for Notice of Intent to Option not available
propose (NOI)
Due date for Phase-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA and
Section 2.2.1.
Planning date for start of 5-10 months after proposal due date.
investigation
Page limit for the central Science- 4 pp for regular proposals, 6 pp for large
Technical-Management section of proposals; 1 additional page is required to
Phase-1 proposal describe joint program observations (see
Section 1.5). Page limits include figures and
references. See Section 2.2.2 for guidelines
39T

for preparing proposals for anonymous

reviews.
Relevance This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
Requirements for content of For Phase-1 see Section 2.2.2. For Phase-2
proposals see Section 2.2.4 and D.1 The Astrophysics
Research Program Overview.
Detailed instructions for the For Phase-1 see Section 2.2.1. For Phase-2
submission of proposals see Section 2.2.4.
Submission medium Electronic submission is required; no hard
copy is permitted.

D.6-10
Web site for submission of Notice of 32T Option not available
Intent to propose (NOI)
Web site for submission of Phase-1 http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/proposals/ (Help
32T 32T

proposal and required forms Desk available at

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/help/ )
32T 32T

Web site for submission of Phase-1

Option not available
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of Phase-1
Option not available
proposal via Grants.gov
Fermi Science Support Center 32T http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/help/ 32T

helpdesk
Programmatic information may be
obtained from the Fermi Program
Scientist
William Latter
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0734
Email: William.B.Latter@nasa.gov
32T 32T

Technical questions concerning this Chris Shrader

program element may be directed to
the Fermi Science Support Center
Code 661
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001
Telephone: (301) 286-8434
Email: Chris.R.Shrader@nasa.gov
32T 32T

Help Desk:
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/help/
32T 32T

Questions concerning Fermi Elizabeth Hays

capabilities may be directed to the Code 661
Fermi Project Scientist NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Telephone: 301-286-0345
Email: Elizabeth.A.Hays@nasa.gov
32T 32T

D.6-11
D.7 STRATEGIC ASTROPHYSICS TECHNOLOGY
NOTICE: Amended October 5, 2022. The mandatory NOI due date for
D.7 Strategic Astrophysics Technology has been deferred to
November 4, 2022. The proposal due date remains unchanged at
December 15, 2022. Also, as part of making the Inclusion Plan
language uniform and consistent among all Astrophysics elements
that require an Inclusion Plan, the Inclusion Plan language in Section
1.5 has been replaced in its entirety.
Amended September 12, 2022. This amendment releases the final text
and due dates for this program element, which had been listed as
“TBD”. mandatory Notices of Intent are due October 21, 2022 and
proposals are due December 15, 2022. This updated text includes a
revision of the Specific Technology Development Exclusions, see
Section 1.3. This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan
Program, see Section 1.5. This Inclusion Plan will not be part of the
adjectival ratings or selection for this opportunity. Due to the nature
of the proposed investigations, Data Management Plans are not
requested.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview
NASA's Astrophysics Division (APD) continues to undertake spaceflight missions that
will explore the nature of the Universe at its largest scales, its earliest moments, and its
most extreme conditions; missions that will study how galaxies and stars formed and
evolved to shape the Universe we see today; and missions that will seek out and
characterize planets and planetary systems orbiting other stars.
To enable implementation of these strategic missions, APD will continue the Strategic
Astrophysics Technology (SAT) program to support the maturation of key technologies
for potential infusion in spaceflight missions. The 2020 Decadal Survey of Astronomy
and Astrophysics, “Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the
2020s” (hereafter Astro2020; https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/decadal-
survey-on-astronomy-and-astrophysics-2020-astro2020) provided new science,
technology, and mission priorities for the 2020 decade and beyond, and this SAT
program element is intended to advance those priorities.
The focus of the SAT program is maturation of key technologies for incorporation into
future strategic astrophysics flight missions. Technology maturity is measured in terms
of the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the technologies involved. NASA uses a
nine-level classification system to rate the readiness of a particular technology for use in
a space flight mission. The TRL definitions are articulated in detail in NASA Systems
Engineering Processes and Requirement (NPR) 7123.1C Appendix E (updated on
February 14, 2020,
https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7123_001C_&page_na
me=AppendixE). NASA's recommended best practices for evaluating TRL are

D.7-1
described in the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist’s Technology Readiness
Assessment Best Practices Guide https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205003605.
Briefly, TRLs 1–3 represent basic research into new technologies and demonstration of
their feasibility as the basis for fight hardware, while TRLs 7-9 correspond to
development of flight hardware.
The SAT program is designed to support the maturation of technologies whose
feasibility has already been demonstrated (i.e., TRL 3), to the point where they can be
incorporated into NASA flight missions (TRL 6). Table D.7.1 (below) provides the
definitions for the midrange TRLs supported by the SAT program.
APD has three science-themed programs: Exoplanet Exploration (ExEP), Physics of the
Cosmos (PhysCOS), and Cosmic Origins (COR), which cover, respectively, the search
for and study of planets outside the Solar System, the origin and evolution of the
Universe, and the birth of stars and galaxies. These focus areas are all represented
within the SAT program.
Table D.7.1 Expanded Maturity Definitions for Midrange TRLs (SAT Program)
TRL Definition Hardware Description Software Description Success Criteria
Analytical and Research and development
Development of limited Documented
experimental are initiated, including
functionality to validate analytical/experi-
proof-of-concept analytical and laboratory
critical properties and mental results
3 of critical function studies to validate predictions using non- validating predictions
and/or predictions regarding the
integrated software of key parameters.
characteristics. technology. components.
Component A low fidelity Key, functionality critical Documented test
and/or system/component software components are performance
breadboard breadboard is built andintegrated and functionally demonstrating
validation in a operated to demonstratevalidated to establish agreement with
4 laboratory basic functionality in a
interoperability and begin analytical
environment. laboratory environment.architecture development. predictions.
Relevant environments Documented
defined and performance in definition of relevant
the environment predicted. environment.
Component A medium-fidelity End-to-end software Documented test
and/or brassboard component and/or elements implemented and performance
validated in a brassboard, with realistic interfaced with existing demonstrating
relevant support elements, is built systems/simulations agreement with
environment. and operated for validation conforming to target analytical
in a relevant environment environment. End-to-end predictions.
so as to demonstrate software system tested in Documented
5 overall performance in relevant environment, definition of scaling
critical areas. meeting predicted requirements.
performance. Operational Performance
environment performance predictions are made
predicted. Prototype for subsequent
implementations development phases.
developed.

D.7-2
 System/subsys- A high-fidelity prototype of Prototype implementations Documented test
tem model or the system/subsystems that of the software performance
prototype adequately addresses all demonstrated on full-scale, demonstrating
demonstration in critical scaling issues is realistic problems. Partially agreement with
a relevant built and tested in a integrated with existing analytical
6 environment. relevant environment to hardware/software predictions.
demonstrate performance systems. Limited
under critical environmental documentation available.
conditions. Engineering feasibility fully
demonstrated.

1.2 Requirements for SAT Proposals

This section describes the general requirements for SAT proposals. Proposers are
strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with APD’s technology needs. As a
reference, those needs are summarized in the following documents prepared by the
APD Program Offices:
• Astrophysics Biennial Technology Report (ABTR) 2022 at
https://apd440.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/tech/2022_ABTR.pdf
• Prioritized Astrophysics Technology Gaps List at
https://apd440.gsfc.nasa.gov/tech_gap_priorities.html and
• Past abstracts and reports on APD's prior investments in funded strategic
technology development are available in a searchable database at
http://www.astrostrategictech.us/.
Proposers must:
• Focus their proposals on the technology needs of the highest-priority mission
recommendations of Astro2020. These include the top-priority large mission, a
flagship-class infrared/optical/ultraviolet (IR/O/UV) Great Observatory, as well as
probe-class missions at Far-IR and X-ray wavelengths, and subsequent Far-IR and
X-ray Great Observatories. Maturation of technology components that will be
needed within the current decade will have a higher priority for selection under the
program.
• Identify the Astrophysics science theme program most closely related to the
proposed technology recommended by Astro2020, within the described Scientific
Opportunities and Priority Areas. Proposed technologies may be relevant to more
than one of these three areas. APD reserves the right to reassign a proposal to any
of the three Programs for the purposes of obtaining the most qualified evaluations;
• Describe the planned path to achieving the goals of the proposed technology
maturation. In particular:
(a) Present a convincing case that the proposed technology is already at TRL 3;
(b) Specify the expected TRL at the conclusion of the proposed program. It is neither
required nor expected that proposers will complete this entire development
process (or even advance a full step on the TRL scale) within the two- or three-
year duration of proposals solicited in this call. However, the program should
result in a quantitatively demonstrable advancement of the subject technology;

D.7-3
 (c) Define at least one objectively verifiable milestone that represents a meaningful
advancement of the proposed technology and provide a schedule for achieving
that (those) milestone(s) over the course of the proposed project;
(d) Describe a work plan that fully articulates the technical parameters to be
demonstrated for all technical milestones identified. This work plan should
include the measurements to be made, analyses to be applied, success criteria,
and documentation to be provided. The work plan and associated milestones will
be critically evaluated as part of the peer-review process.
In addition to the above, both the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b)ii of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation provide additional specific requirements for the
format of proposals submitted in response to this opportunity (e.g., page limits,
acceptable font sizes, line spacing, margins, etc.). Proposals found to violate these
guidelines will be penalized, even to the extent of being declined without review, or not
being funded, independent of their intrinsic merit evaluation. Proposers are reminded
that it is the Portable Document Format (PDF) version of their proposal in NSPIRES that
will be judged for compliance. Since, in rare cases, cross-platform translation of PDF
documents can alter the formatting of a document, proposers are strongly urged to
download copies of any documents they upload to the NSPIRES system to ensure that
they still conform to all formatting requirements.
A data management plan is not required for proposals to this program element.
Early career researchers proposing to the SAT program element may apply for a Nancy
Grace Roman Technology Fellowship (RTF) in conjunction with their SAT proposal,
providing they meet the eligibility requirements specified below and in program element
D.8 of this ROSES solicitation. The application to become a Roman Technology Fellow
is a one-page addendum submitted along with an SAT proposal. To be eligible for an
RTF, the applicant must be designated as the Principal Investigator (PI), Science PI, or
Institutional PI as their proposal role on the SAT cover sheet, and must be shown to
have a substantial, leading, and responsible role in the proposal work plan. An applicant
on a successful SAT proposal will then be considered for designation as a Roman
Technology Fellow based on this one-page application.
1.3 Specific Technology Development Exclusions
Proposals in the following areas are specifically not solicited under SAT 2022:
I. Investigations that advance gravitational-wave-detection technologies to
performance levels required for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA)
(funded through a directed technology development activity);
II. Investigations that advance technologies for the Advanced Telescope for High
ENergy Astrophysics (ATHENA) (funded through a directed technology development
activity);
III. Proposals for development and maintenance of testing facilities and/or tools that
substantively reproduce the capabilities of existing infrastructure;
IV. Proposals requiring a dedicated suborbital flight (Balloons and/or Sounding Rockets)
for technology tests or risk reduction;
V. Proposals for development of technologies for actual and/or potential competed non-
strategic missions such as CubeSats, Pioneers, and Explorers missions;

D.7-4
VI. Investigations that advance coronagraph architectures and technologies to the
performance levels required for the Roman Space Telescope Coronagraph
Instrument. Note that coronagraphs architectures and technologies for future Great
Observatories are not excluded.
It is worth pointing out that NASA is transitioning the maturation of starshade
technologies from a directed funding model to a competed funding model.
Consequently, proposals for starshade technology development activities that address
relevant performance characteristics in the Prioritized Technology Development Gap list
may be proposed and will be considered for funding under SAT 2022.
1.4 Mandatory Notice of Intent
A Notice of Intent (NOI) is mandatory. To facilitate the early recruitment of a conflict-free
review panel and ensure that proposals are submitted to the appropriate category, an
NOI is required in advance of proposal submission to this program element. Proposals
that are not preceded by an NOI will be returned without review. No feedback will be
provided in response to the NOI. Submission of an NOI does not obligate the proposer
to submit a full proposal later.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to list the names of all their Co-Investigators and
Collaborators on the NOI. To make changes to the team after NOI submission,
proposers must inform mario.perez@nasa.gov as soon as possible. Additions of funded
investigators within two weeks of the proposal deadline require explicit permission from
the NASA point of contact.
1.5 Inclusion Plan [Text replaced October 5, 2022]
NASA is committed to a culture of diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility. Aligning
with NASA’s core value of inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate’s Science Plan
(see Strategy 4.1 in SMD Science Plan), SMD seeks to increase the diversity of thought
and backgrounds represented across the entire SMD portfolio through a more inclusive
and accessible environment.
To advance NASA’s core value and SMD’s plans, an Inclusion Plan, not to exceed two
pages (plus additional pages for references, as necessary) immediately following the
references for the S/T/M section, is required for all proposals.
Through the addition of Inclusion Plans, NASA seeks to improve equity in STEM by
asking proposers to consider ways to involve and empower historically underserved and
underrepresented groups in STEM.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to:
• identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for the
proposed investigation; 
• address ways in which the investigation team will attenuate or reduce these
barriers to create and sustain such an environment;
• discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will empower those from
historically underrepresented and underserved groups to be leaders and full
participants within an inclusionary environment where all voices are heard;

D.7-5
 • discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will develop a diverse and
inclusive scientific workforce and clearly define roles and responsibilities for all
team members towards pursuing those goals; and
• consider the involvement of organizations and institutions that support and serve
under-represented groups including, but not limited to, Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and Other
Minority Universities.
A resource that some proposers may find useful in this regard is NASA’s Minority
Serving Institutions (MSI) Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
For the assessment of the Inclusion Plan, a peer review panel that may have a
combination of science discipline experts, social scientists, and/or experts on issues
surrounding diversity, inclusion, and equity, will be asked the following questions:
a. Does the Inclusion Plan provide adequate processes and goals for creating a positive
and inclusive working environment for the investigation team? Does the Inclusion
Plan include ways in which this positive and inclusive working environment will be
maintained? For instance, are the Plan’s metrics of success and associated
assessment plans adequate for gauging progress towards creating and sustaining
the inclusive environment? Does the Inclusion Plan demonstrate awareness of
systemic barriers and ideas for removing these to create inclusive working
environments? 
b. Does the Inclusion Plan adequately describe the contribution of the proposed
investigation to the training and development of a diverse and inclusive team? Does
the Inclusion Plan provide an adequate plan for achieving the identified contribution?
Is the Plan likely to be successful in realizing the identified contribution? 
c. Do the efforts in the Inclusion Plan have clearly stated goals, actions to achieve those
goals, and metrics for measuring progress during the award period?
Please note that an Inclusion Plan is not the same as public engagement efforts nor is it
the same as NSF’s Broader Impacts statement. An Inclusion Plan that describes such
efforts alone will be considered inadequate for the purposes of this assessment. If
funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, it should be included and justified in
the budget. 
Note that while the assessment of the Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival
rating for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals, funding will be
released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory Inclusion Plan is approved by
the selection official. If funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, that request
for funding should be clearly identified and justified in the budget as a separate budget
element so it can be assessed. Reviewers and proposers will be invited to provide
comments and suggestions to improve the Inclusion Plan aspect of this research
program after the review is completed.
1.6 Request for Reviewer Names
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of up to
five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is or stand to benefit financially from the selection (or

D.7-6
otherwise) of the proposal. This information should be included in the program-specific
data question in the NOI, or emailed to the relevant Program Officer listed below.
2. Reporting Requirements
Annual progress reports per NSSC requirements must be submitted to the respective
Program Officer before funds for the following year of the award are disbursed. The
annual report shall contain detailed documentation of the progress towards the
milestones identified in the proposal, a description of the plan forward, and its expected
outcomes.
NASA reserves the right to terminate an award if it deems that achievement of the
proposed goals according to the proposed schedule is unlikely to occur.
NASA will assign oversight of successful SAT proposals to one of the two Astrophysics
science-theme Program Offices (ExEP or PhysCOS/COR). Each Program Office has
specific procedures for reporting and documenting progress.
2.1 Exoplanet Exploration Program
The Exoplanet Exploration Program (ExEP) model for advancement of technologies is
founded on the following three interrelated components:
1. Demonstration of milestone performance must be stable and repeatable, thereby
demonstrating that the result is not spurious or transient;
2. Modeling of the milestone demonstration must be consistent with the demonstrated
result, thereby establishing that the behavior is thoroughly understood; and
3. Error budget for the milestone must be consistent with the models.
Milestones may involve one or all of these elements. In addition, milestones for all SAT
investigations that make use of ExEP high-contrast imaging testbeds shall incorporate
both predictive and post-test validated modeling. In the interests of consistency and
comparability, investigators will be expected to make use of ExEP’s existing modeling
capability.
For all technical milestones identified in a proposal, the PI will be expected to prepare a
milestone white paper – a work plan that fully articulates the technical parameters to be
demonstrated, the measurements to be made, analyses to be applied, success criteria,
and documentation to be produced. That white paper will be reviewed by an
independent technology assessment committee and may be iterated until agreement is
reached between the technologists, the reviewers, and NASA. When the PI believes
his/her team has achieved all the requirements set forth in their milestone white paper,
they will be required to write a milestone final report addressing all aspects identified in
the original white paper. The milestone report will then be subject to independent review
by, and iteration with, the same groups involved in the initial white paper.
2.2 Physics of the Cosmos and Cosmic Origins Programs
SAT PIs under the oversight of the PhysCOS/COR Program Office are expected to
provide written and oral status reports throughout their grants’ period of performance to
inform the Program of their progress. This reporting requirement includes: 1) a
kickoff/annual presentation describing the investigation, progress to date, development
milestones, and work plan, 2) bi-monthly progress reports covering technical and

D.7-7
programmatic highlights, 3) a mid-year written status report that will be uploaded to the
publicly accessible Astrophysics technology database
(http://www.astrostrategictech.us), and 4) a final report summarizing the development
activities and findings, which will also be uploaded to the database. When a PI believes
his/her technology has advanced in TRL, the PI will be asked to present a TRL
advancement justification to an independent board convened by the Program Office to
vet the achievement.
In addition to the annual progress report, successful proposers may also be asked to
orally present their results to the Program Office and other relevant officers. NASA
reserves the right to terminate an award if it deems that achievement of the proposed
goals according to the proposed schedule is unlikely to occur.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~$10M
year of new awards
Maximum duration of awards 3 years; proposals with a term shorter than 2 years
may be accepted, but are not encouraged.
Mandatory NOI due date See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of October 1 or later of the year following the proposal
investigation due date.
Page limit for the central Science-
15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and the
Technical-Management section of
2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers
proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview
of this solicitation See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.

General requirements for content See D.1 The Astrophysics Research Program
of proposals Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of the
submission of proposals 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Website for submission of http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
proposal via NSPIRES nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
Website for submission of https://www.grants.gov (help desk
proposal via Grants.gov available at support@grants.gov or
Funding opportunity number for (800) 518-4726)
downloading an application NNH22ZDA001N-SAT
package from Grants.gov

D.7-8
In addition to the Program Officers listed below with their areas of expertise, the main
point of contact concerning this program is:
Mario R. Perez
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
300 E Street SW
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1535
Email: mario.perez@nasa.gov
Name Science Area
Telephone Email
Douglas Hudgins Exoplanet (202) 358-0988 douglas.m.hudgins@nasa.gov
Exploration
Valerie Physics of
(202) 358-1763 valerie.connaughton@nasa.gov
Connaughton the Cosmos
Cosmic
Eric Tollestrup (202) 358-0997 eric.v.tollestrup@nasa.gov
Origins
Questions regarding access to ExEP-managed facilities such as the High Contrast
Imaging Testbed and starshade development infrastructure should be directed to:
Brendan Crill, ExEP Technology Manager, brendan.p.crill@jpl.nasa.gov; or
Nick Siegler, ExEP Chief Technologist, nicholas.siegler@jpl.nasa.gov

D.7-9
D.8 NANCY GRACE ROMAN TECHNOLOGY FELLOWSHIPS IN SPACE ASTROPHYSICS FOR
EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
1. Overview
The goals of the Nancy Grace Roman Technology Fellowship (RTF) program in
astrophysics are to provide early-career researchers the opportunity to develop the
skills necessary to lead astrophysics flight instrument development projects, including
suborbital investigations, in preparation to become Principal Investigators (PIs) of future
NASA astrophysics missions; to develop innovative technologies for space astrophysics
that have the potential to enable major scientific breakthroughs; and to foster new
talents by putting early career instrument builders on a trajectory towards long-term
positions. NASA is committed to supporting deserving early career researchers by
selecting one or more Roman Technology Fellows every year. This program is not
linked to the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (formerly WFIRST).
This program consists of two components with two different submission procedures.
The first component is the one-page application from an early career individual to be
named a Roman Technology Fellow (RTF), see Section 2. The second component is
the subsequent submission of a proposal for up to $300K in Fellowship Funds by a
previously selected RTF once that individual obtains a permanent or permanent-track
position, in order to start a laboratory or develop a research group at the Fellow’s
institution (see Section 3). Please see Section 2.1 for the definition of an early career
position, and Section 4.1 for the definition of a permanent or permanent track position.
2. Eligibility and Application to be named a Roman Technology Fellow
The application to become a Nancy Grace Roman Technology Fellow does not involve
a separate proposal to this program element. Rather, the RTF application is a one-page
application submitted along with a proposal submitted to either the Astrophysics
Research and Analysis (APRA) or Strategic Astrophysics Technology (SAT) Programs
described in program elements D.3 and D.7 of this ROSES solicitation. The PI of a
successful technology-centered APRA/SAT proposal who is designated as a Roman
Technology Fellow based on this one-page application has the opportunity to apply for
Fellowship Funds in the future, as described in Section 3.
2.1 Eligibility
To be eligible to be named a Nancy Grace Roman Technology Fellow (as opposed to
the application for start up funds, see Section 3), proposing PIs must meet the following
requirements at the time of the APRA/SAT proposal submission:
• Have received a Ph.D. degree on or after January 1 of a year that is no more than
eight years prior to the issuance date of the ROSES NASA Research
Announcement (NRA) to which the APRA/SAT proposal is submitted. Individuals
who have interrupted their professional careers for substantive reasons, such as
military service, family leave, or health issues, may seek a waiver to this
requirement. Applicants who submit a written request for prior concurrence from
NASA before the due date for Notices of Intent to propose to APRA/SAT will receive
a written response from NASA within three weeks of receipt of this request.

D.8-1
• Hold an early career position such as a postdoctoral, tenure-track, term civil service,
or an equivalent non-permanent position, as defined in Section 4.1, at the time of the
APRA/SAT proposal submission and at the time of the selection as an RTF Fellow.
In the event that a proposer’s institution does not allow non-tenured faculty or
postdoctoral researchers to apply independently for NASA grants, the proposal may
include a mentor as the PI with the fellowship applicant as the Science PI, as
outlined in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
• Be a U.S. citizen or have lawful status of permanent residency (i.e., holder of a U.S.
Permanent Resident Card, also referred to as the Green Card)1 to be consistent with
the RTF goal of fostering new talent by putting early career instrument builders on a
trajectory towards long-term positions at a U.S. institution.
• Not hold, or have held, a career civil service, tenure, or other permanent position, as
defined in Section 4.1 on or prior to the proposal due date for APRA/SAT.
• Not be a current or former recipient of an RTF or a Presidential Early Career Awards
for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) award.
2.2 Fellowship Application
The procedure for applying to become an RTF Fellow is as follows:
1. Submit a technical proposal as PI (or Science PI, if necessary) to the APRA or SAT
program element of this ROSES solicitation.
2. Indicate on the NSPIRES Cover Page of that proposal the desire to be named a
Roman Technology Fellow, and meet the eligibility requirements in Section 2.1.
3. Include the required RTF application in the APRA/SAT proposal, as described below.
4. Receive an award letter for that APRA/SAT proposal.
Selection of the APRA/SAT proposal is a prerequisite for consideration as a Roman
Technology Fellow, but does not guarantee selection. Those who are named as Roman
Technology Fellows will receive an award letter from the RTF program explicitly
conferring the title.
The RTF application is a free-form narrative limited to a single page in length. It should
convey to the review panel and selecting officials the applicant’s qualifications to be
named a Roman Technology Fellow, addressing the evaluation criteria in Section 2.3.
The application should describe the candidate’s current employment position to
establish eligibility for the RTF. It should outline career goals and plans, and discuss
how an RTF will help advance the applicant’s career and achieve those goals. The
application should complement, not simply duplicate, the information provided in the
Biographical Sketches section of the APRA/SAT proposal.
The application should be included in the APRA/SAT proposal immediately following the
PI’s Biographical Sketch. The one-page RTF application does not count towards the
page limits for the Science/Technology/Management section of the APRA/SAT
proposal.

1
The prospective fellow may submit a proposal to RTF if he or she is reasonably certain that the Green
Card will be in hand soon after the proposal submission. The evaluation of proposals and announcement
of selection takes approximately three to four months. NASA will not make an award if the submitting
institution cannot certify the prospective fellow’s eligibility.

D.8-2
2.3 Evaluation Criteria for Fellowship Selection
The APRA/SAT proposal containing the RTF application will be reviewed along with
other proposals in the pertinent APRA/SAT review panel, as determined by technical
discipline.
The application for the Roman Technology Fellowship will be separately evaluated
according to the goals of the RTF program. The fellowship application should
demonstrate that through the proposed APRA/SAT research, in conjunction with being
named a Roman Technology Fellow, the early career researcher will develop the skills
necessary to lead astrophysics flight instrument development projects, including
suborbital investigations. The fellowship application is expected to demonstrate how
these skills will prepare the Fellow to become a PI of future NASA astrophysics
missions, or to develop innovative technologies for space astrophysics that have the
potential to enable major scientific breakthroughs. The application is also expected to
illustrate how the fellowship will put the applicant on a trajectory towards a long-term
position.
2.4 Timing of Selections and Awards
The announcement of selections for the technical (APRA/SAT) proposals will be in
accordance with the schedule of those program elements of the ROSES solicitation.
The naming of the candidate a Roman Technology Fellow will occur within 3 months of
the RTF-related APRA/SAT proposal being selected.
3. Fellowship Funds
Individuals who have previously been named as Roman Technology Fellows may
submit a proposal requesting up to $300K in Fellowship Funds to start a laboratory or
develop a research group at their institution. This component of the program is intended
to aid Fellows in establishing themselves in a permanent-track position. Accordingly,
proposers for Fellowship Funds must be in a permanent-track or permanent position
(see Section 4.1), and must submit the proposal to this program element from the
organization where the permanent-track position is held. Awarding of Fellowship Funds
is not guaranteed simply by having been named a Fellow. Awards are contingent upon
favorable peer review and available budget.
The proposal may be submitted in response to this program element at any time within
two years from the date that the RTF-related APRA/SAT proposal is selected.
Proposers must contact the RTF Program Officer prior to submitting a proposal for
Fellowship Funds, preferably within the first year of the Fellowship.
3.1 The Fellowship Funds Proposal
The Fellowship Funds proposal must establish that the Fellow’s appointment meets the
definition of a permanent-track or permanent position as defined in Section 4.1. The
proposal must clearly describe how the funds will be used to establish or develop the
PI's research and technology development program, how the proposed program will
advance the state-of-the-art in astrophysics-related technologies, and how the proposed
program is relevant to NASA’s Astrophysics Program. The proposal should detail the

D.8-3
near-term use of the Fellowship Funds, and outline the Fellow’s long-term plans for
maintaining the research and development program.
NASA encourages, but does not require, the submitting institution to contribute to the
project supported by the Fellowship Funds. An example is support by the employing
institution that would provide release time to enable the applicant to concentrate more
fully on the activities related to the proposal. Institutional support of equipment
purchases and co-funding of student and/or postdoctoral support is recognized by
NASA as a valuable contribution. Any institutional commitments for laboratory space,
matching or startup funds, and other institutional resources required for the proposed
work should be included in the proposal.
The technical management section of the proposal is limited to seven pages, and the
proposal must contain a detailed budget with a narrative justification. Projects devoted
to technology development that are not expected to generate data need not provide
data management plans (DMP), but must note in the DMP section of the proposal (see
appendix D.1, Astrophysics Research Program Overview) that they are technology
projects that will not generate data. However, if the award does result in peer reviewed
publications, then those must still meet the requirement that the data behind figures and
tables be available electronically at the time of publication, ideally in supplementary
material included with the article.
3.2 Evaluation Criteria for Fellowship Funds Proposals
Proposals for Fellowship Funds will be evaluated for merit, relevance, and cost
reasonableness. In addition to the factors stated in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers,
intrinsic merit will also include the following factors:
• The long-term commitment to the early career researcher’s career development
by the employing institution.
• The likelihood that the early career researcher will develop the skills necessary to
lead astrophysics flight instrument development projects, including suborbital
(sounding rocket, balloon, CubeSat) investigations, in preparation to become a PI
of future astrophysics missions, or to develop innovative technologies for space
astrophysics that have the potential to enable major scientific breakthroughs.
The evaluation against these criteria will be independent of any prior evaluation of the
affiliated APRA/SAT proposal or the one-page fellowship application.
If a Fellowship Funds proposal is not selected for award, the Fellow may propose again
for Fellowship Funds if a material change in circumstances mitigates the deficiencies
identified by the review of the prior proposal. Proposal submission is subject to the
fellowship duration specified in Section 4.2.
4. Programmatic Information
4.1 Definition of Permanent and Permanent-Track Positions
A permanent position is one in which the organization substantially financially
compensates the PI for his or her work and effort, without making it conditional on
outside funding, nor limiting the term of employment. Examples of permanent positions
include, but are not limited to, tenured faculty and permanent civil service appointments.

D.8-4
A permanent-track position is one with a clearly defined process and schedule that can
lead to a permanent position. Examples of permanent-track positions include, but are
not limited to, tenure-track faculty and certain term civil service appointments.
4.2 Award Type and Duration
The RTF funds award is contingent on a successful APRA/SAT proposal. NASA does
anticipate awarding a separate direct grant in response to proposals submitted to this
program element. Awards in response to this program element are in addition and
separate from the initial award. RTF funds will be awarded over a period of no more
than 3 consecutive years. However, the Fellowship designation will last through the
duration of the funds award.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for See APRA and SAT program elements of this
new awards ROSES solicitation.
Number of new awards (with Approximately 1-3 early-career fellowships, enabled
the option of submitting a to submit a RTF proposal for funding.
subsequent RTF proposal)
Maximum duration of awards Fellowship funds will be awarded over a period of
no more than 3 consecutive years.
Due date for Notice of Intent to Initial fellowship applications via program elements
propose (NOI) APRA and SAT, see Section 2.2
Due date for proposals Initial fellowship applications via APRA and SAT
program elements, see Section 2.2. Subsequent
proposals for funds may be submitted in response
to this program element at any time within two years
from the date the RTF-related APRA/SAT proposal
is selected.
Planning date for start of For initial fellowship applications see Section 2 and
investigation APRA and SAT. For subsequent proposals for
funds, please contact the POC below.
Page limit for the central
Initial fellowship application is a one-page addition
Science-Technical-
to a proposal to APRA or SAT program element; 7
Management section of
pp. for subsequent proposals for fellowship funding
proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
strategic goals and subgoals in NASA’s Strategic
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this program
are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for See D.1 The Astrophysics Research Program
content of proposals Overview and Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.

D.8-5
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b)
of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at
nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
Initial fellowship applications via
APRA: NNH22ZDA001N-APRA or
SAT: NNH22ZDA001N-SAT
Mario R. Perez
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1535
Email: mario.perez@nasa.gov
D.8-6
D.9 NUSTAR GENERAL OBSERVER – CYCLE 9
NOTICE: Clarified December 8, 2022. Proposals from PIs affiliated with
organizations in the PRC are not eligible and will not be reviewed, see
Section 1, new text is in bold. The due dates remain unchanged.
Amended October 7, 2022: The prior restriction that joint NICER
observations may not be multi-cycle has been removed (Section
1.3.2). Clarifications have been added regarding joint NICER
monitoring (Section 1.3.3, last bullet), Large Program ToOs (Section
1.3.5), and the overall GO budget (Section 2.1). Statements mentioning
the NASA Astrophysics Senior Review process have been updated to
refer to the 2022 installment. New text is in bold and deleted text is
struck through. The due date for proposals remains unchanged;
Phase-1 proposals are due by 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time January 26,
2023, via ARK/RPS.
The execution of NuSTAR GO – Cycle 9 is contingent upon the
outcome of the 2022 Astrophysics Senior Review of Operating
Missions.
In Cycle 9, all Phase-1 proposals submitted to the NuSTAR General
Observer Program will be evaluated following a dual-anonymous peer
review process. Proposals must be prepared following the guidelines
in Section 2.2.1 and in the associated "Guidelines for Anonymous
Proposals" document.
Due to the nature of the proposed investigations, NuSTAR GO –
Cycle 9 proposals are not required to include a Data Management
Plan.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview
The Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) Small Explorer (SMEX) mission
is the first orbiting telescope to focus light in the high energy X-ray region of the
electromagnetic spectrum (E > 10 keV), with an effective bandpass of 3 - 79 keV. The
observatory provides a combined improvement in sensitivity and spatial/spectral
resolution by factors of 10 to 100 over previous missions that have operated at these
energies. The NuSTAR General Observer (GO) Program solicits proposals for basic
research relevant to the NuSTAR mission.
NuSTAR Cycle 9 will commence on or about June 1, 2023, and last for a nominal period
of 12 months. Based upon the outcome of the 2022 NASA Astrophysics Senior Review
process, NuSTAR operations are currently funded through September 30, 2025 2.
Further details on the Cycle 9 program may be found on the NuSTAR GO Program
website (http://nustar.gsfc.nasa.gov). [Updated October 7, 2022]
Observing time will be made available to scientists at both U.S. and non-U.S.
institutions. Individuals may submit proposals for three general types of observations:
"standard-mode", "Target-of-Opportunity" (ToO, see Section 1.3.4), and "Large

D.9-1
Programs" (LP, see Section 1.3.5). In addition to proposals for ToO observations
submitted in response to this program element, unsolicited requests for ToO
observations may be made through the NuSTAR Science Operations Center. Note that
unsolicited ToO requests are ineligible for funding under the NuSTAR GO Program.
The data from NuSTAR observations selected under this ROSES program element will
have a limited exclusive-use period of nominally six-months, commencing at the time of
the availability of the processed data to the observer. Note that Principal Investigators
(PIs) may ask for waivers that increase (or decrease) the default exclusive-use period.
Waivers should be on a case-by-case basis, infrequent, and always with compelling
justification. More information is available at:
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nustar/nupropthread.html. PIs may also opt for the
observation(s) to be placed directly into the NuSTAR public archive. Proposal merit is
evaluated without regard to whether a waiver is requested. Data resulting from
unsolicited ToO requests will have no exclusive-use period.
In addition to investigations utilizing NuSTAR observations only, proposals involving
coordinated observations with the European Space Agency (ESA)/NASA X-ray Multi-
Mirror Mission (XMM)-Newton X-ray observatory, NASA’s Neil Gehrels Swift
observatory, and NASA’s Neutron star Interior Composition ExploreR (NICER) mission
are also solicited under this ROSES program element. Prospective proposers of joint
observations with these facilities should refer to Section 1.3.1 for details concerning the
evaluation and implementation of such proposals.
Opportunities for carrying out NuSTAR observations in conjunction with NASA’s
Chandra X-ray Observatory, Neil Gehrels Swift observatory, NICER, and with ESA’s
XMM-Newton and INTEGRAL observatories are also available through the relevant
Calls for Proposals for those missions. More information is available on the NuSTAR
website: https://www.nustar.caltech.edu/page/for_proposers.
Funding for investigations selected under the NuSTAR GO Program is available only to
individuals at U.S. institutions who are identified as Principal Investigators (PIs). U.S.-
based Co-Investigators on non-U.S.-led proposals are not eligible for funding.
Proposals from PIs affiliated with PRC organizations are not eligible and will be
declined without review. Proposals that involve bilateral (USA/PRC) participation,
collaboration, or coordination with individuals affiliated with organizations in the
PRC are ineligible, see Section III.c of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
[Clarified, December 8, 2022].
Proposals for investigations directed primarily towards the conduct of supporting
theoretical or laboratory astrophysics research or ground-based observations relevant
to the NuSTAR mission or observations primarily for calibration of NuSTAR or other
instruments are not solicited under this program. Such requests should be made to the
NuSTAR PI.
1.2 The NuSTAR Mission
NuSTAR is a PI-led NASA Small Explorer (SMEX) mission. The PI institution is the
California Institute of Technology, which is responsible for the overall direction of the
program. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) is responsible for the project

D.9-2
management. The lead domestic partners include Columbia University, the University of
California at Berkeley, and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The Danish Technical
University Space Centre and the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) made significant
contributions to the hardware and data analysis software development, respectively.
ASI is an active participant in mission operations, providing access to the Italian ground
station at Malindi, Kenya. The NuSTAR Mission Operations Center (MOC) is at the
University of California at Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory, and the Science
Operations Center (SOC) is at the California Institute of Technology.
NuSTAR was launched on June 13, 2012, from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall
Islands into a low-Earth orbit with an inclination of 6 degrees and an altitude of 630 km x
610 km. After an initial six-week checkout period and subsequent two-year baseline
mission, NuSTAR transitioned to being primarily community-led through a General
Observer (GO) program, which began in 2015. Based upon the results of the 2022
NASA 2019 Senior Review, support for mission operations was extended through
September 30, 2025 2. The observatory has no expendables, and the orbit lifetime is
estimated at ~10-15 years from launch. Currently in its tenth year of operations, the
observatory continues to function nominally. The NuSTAR spacecraft carries two
sensitive, co-aligned, narrow-field instruments. Table 1 summarizes the primary
performance specifications. Details of the observatory and instrument design can be
found at http://nustar.caltech.edu/, as well as the NuSTAR mission paper, Harrison et al.
(2013; ApJ, 770, 103).
Table 1: Key Observatory Performance Parameters
Parameter Value
Energy range 3–78.4 keV
Angular resolution (HPD) 58
Angular resolution (FWHM) 18
FoV (50% resp.) at 10 keV 10
FoV (50% resp.) at 68 keV 6
Sensitivity (6–10 keV) (106 s, 3σ, ΔE/E = 0.5) 2 x 10−15 erg cm−2 s−1
Sensitivity (10–30 keV) (106 s, 3σ, ΔE/E = 0.5) 1 x 10−14 erg cm−2 s−1
Background in HPD (3–10 keV) 9.0 x 10−4 counts s−1
Background
Strong source in (>10σ)
HPD (10–30 keV)
positioning 1.1 10−3 counts s−1
1.5x(1σ)
ToO response time < 48 hr
Slew rate 0.06 s−1
Settling time 200 s (typically)
Timing accuracy (after barycenter correction) A few 100 s

1.3 NuSTAR Cycle 9 General Information

The total amount of time allocated to GO during NuSTAR Cycle 9 is expected to be 11.3
Ms (70% of the total available observing time), of which 8.5 Ms will be allocated to
NuSTAR observations selected through this program element. The remaining GO time
will be allocated to joint observations:
• Up to 1.5 Ms to NuSTAR/XMM-Newton joint proposals submitted to the XMM-
Newton Cycle 22 Call for Proposals.

D.9-3
 • Up to 0.5 Ms to NuSTAR/Chandra joint observing proposals submitted to the
Chandra Cycle 25 Call for Proposal.
• Up to 400 ks to NuSTAR/NICER joint observing proposals submitted to the
NICER Cycle 5 Call for Proposals.
• Up to 300 ks to NuSTAR/Neil Gehrels Swift joint observing proposals submitted
to the Gehrels Swift Cycle 19 Call for Proposals.
• Up to 100 ks to NuSTAR/INTEGRAL joint observing proposals submitted to the
INTEGRAL Cycle 21 Call for Proposals.
It is anticipated that approximately 70 investigations will be selected for implementation
under the NuSTAR Cycle 9 GO program.
The remaining 30% of the observing time will be allocated through the NuSTAR Project
to the NuSTAR legacy survey observations (3%); NuSTAR PI discretionary time (17%),
including unsolicited ToO observations open to the scientific community; and time
reserved for calibration observations, engineering tasks, and resolution of operational
issues (10%). The NuSTAR legacy surveys represent extensions of the Galactic and
Extragalactic surveys conducted during the baseline mission (see
http://www.nustar.caltech.edu/page/legacy_surveys for additional information).
Proposers to this program must clearly describe how their proposed investigation
capitalizes on the unique capabilities of NuSTAR. Proposals for investigations involving
targets previously observed or currently planned for observation with NuSTAR must
provide a justification of the need for the requested additional data. The "as-flown"
observing timeline for NuSTAR may be found at
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/NuSTAR_Public/NuSTAROperationSite/AFT_Public.php, and
lists of the approved NuSTAR GO targets from previous cycles are available at
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nustar/previous_cycles.html. Proposers may also
search the NuSTAR master catalog (numaster) table for a complete list of targets
planned for observations as well as completed observations, including NuSTAR targets
awarded through other solicitations (e.g., by Chandra and XMM-Newton joint programs
with NuSTAR). See https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/all/numaster.html.
A list of approved ToO observations accepted through the NuSTAR GO and joint GO
programs is available on the NuSTAR SOC website:
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/NuSTAR_Public/NuSTAROperationSite/TOO_programs.php
Observations of targets proposed through this ROSES program element will take
precedence over legacy program observations of those targets that have not been
executed as of the submission deadline. The applicable legacy observations will be
suspended until the disposition of the proposed GO observations is determined in the
Phase-1 review. Proposed GO observations of legacy targets that are not accepted as
part of the Cycle 9 program will be restored to the legacy program. A list of legacy
observations that are planned to be performed by the end of Cycle 9 will be made
available on the NuSTAR website http://www.nustar.caltech.edu/page/legacy_surveys.
For those Phase-1 proposals recommended for implementation, the approved target
observations will be assigned a Category A, B, C or L (L designates a Large program
target, see section 1.3.5) and a recommended exposure time. Note that for proposals
including observations of multiple targets, the priority of each target observation will be

D.9-4
separately categorized. Assuming nominal operational efficiency, it is anticipated that
observations of most standard-mode Category A, B or L targets will be carried out
during Cycle 9. Any standard-mode, non-time-constrained Category A, B or L
observations not observed during Cycle 9 will be carried over to Cycle 10. See section
1.3.2 for details about multi-year observing proposals.
Observations of Category C targets will be executed on a best-effort basis. Category C
targets not scheduled during a particular observing cycle will not be carried over to the
succeeding cycle; such observations may be re-proposed to a future observing cycle.
Proposals for observations of Cycle 8 Category C targets that have not been scheduled
prior to the Cycle 9 proposal due date may be submitted to Cycle 9. Such proposals will
be considered for selection in Cycle 9 only if the corresponding Cycle 8 observation is
not executed in Cycle 8.
Proposers should note that NuSTAR’s low-inclination (6), low-Earth orbit allows, on
average, a maximum continuous exposure of ~ 3.2 ks per 5.7 ks satellite orbit for
targets below a declination |Dec| of ~ 65; for targets at high declination, |Dec| > 65,
the unocculted period may be longer. Unless there is a specific reason why the total
elapsed time of an observation is important, proposers should specify only the net
exposure time required for achievement of the proposed science goals, excluding
observational efficiency factors (Earth occultations and South Atlantic Anomaly
passages) in the observing time calculation; specification of the total elapsed time
requirement will result in the observation being classified as time-constrained (see
Section 1.3.3).
1.3.1 Programmatic Constraints
Proposals are subject to the following limitations:
• The requested time per observation (i.e., a single "visit" to a target) is
constrained to a minimum of 20 ks;
• Targets for which time-constrained observations are requested will only be given
highest priority for scheduling during Cycle 9 if they are designated Category A,
B, or L (see Section 1.3.3);
• Proposals requesting observations of bright sources (predicted instrument count
rate above 100 counts s-1 for both modules using 50% PSF extraction with no
deadtime) with durations > 30 ks are operationally difficult to carry out.
Accordingly, such proposals must provide a sufficiently compelling motivation to
be considered for acceptance. In addition, proposals requesting observations of
bright sources with exposures longer than 75 ks will be considered for
implementation only if the total requested time is distributed in multiple
observations, each with exposure < 75 ks and separated by more than 1 week;
• Sources with fluxes > 10-11 ergs s-1 cm-2 within 5 of the target may cause
increased nonuniform background gradients due to stray light. Users should
check observations for potential stray light contributions using the tools available
at http://nustar.caltech.edu/page/researchers. If the results of the constraint
check indicates that the position may have a ‘Potential stray light issue’,
proposers should submit a request for a feasibility analysis to nustar-
help@srl.caltech.edu at least two business days prior to the proposal submission
deadline;

D.9-5
• Proposals for joint NuSTAR/XMM-Newton programs in Cycle 9 will be accepted
up to a total of 1.5 Ms of XMM-Newton observing time. Joint proposals must
provide a compelling justification of the need for both the NuSTAR and XMM-
Newton data for achieving the primary science goals and receive a Category A, B
or L rating to be considered for acceptance. No XMM-Newton observing time will
be awarded without the need for NuSTAR observing time on the same target.
XMM-Newton data sets obtained through approved joint NuSTAR/XMM-Newton
proposals have the standard XMM-Newton exclusive-use period. Individuals
considering submission of a Cycle 9 proposal for joint NuSTAR/XMM-Newton
observations should consult the XMM-Newton Cycle 22 approved NuSTAR
target list prior to submission of their proposal. Duplicate observations of the
same targets by NuSTAR will typically not be awarded;
• Proposals for joint NuSTAR/Neil Gehrels Swift programs in Cycle 9 will be
accepted up to a total of 300 ks of Neil Gehrels Swift observing time. Joint
proposals must provide a compelling justification of the need for both the
NuSTAR and Neil Gehrels Swift data for achieving the primary science goals and
receive a Category A, B or L rating to be considered for acceptance. No Neil
Gehrels Swift observing time will be awarded without the need for NuSTAR
observing time on the same target. Proposers are strongly encouraged to
carefully read the Neil Gehrels Swift/NuSTAR memorandum of understanding.
Neil Gehrels Swift data sets obtained through approved joint NuSTAR/Gehrels
Swift proposals will not be proprietary and will be immediately released publicly
via the HEASARC data archive. Note that for most NuSTAR pointings, 1–2 ks
"snapshot" observations are routinely performed by Neil Gehrels Swift (unless
there are multiple observations of the same target, coordinated NuSTAR
observations with other X-ray observatories, and during times of Gamma-Ray
Bursts and Neil Gehrels Swift ToOs) without the need for a specific joint
observing proposal. Individuals considering submission of a Cycle 9 proposal for
joint NuSTAR/Neil Gehrels Swift observations should consult the Neil Gehrels
Swift Cycle 19 approved NuSTAR target list prior to submission of their proposal.
Duplicate observations of the same targets by NuSTAR will typically not be
awarded;
• Proposals for joint NuSTAR/NICER programs in Cycle 9 will be accepted up to a
total of 250 ks of NICER observing time. Joint proposals must provide a
compelling justification of the need for both the NuSTAR and NICER data for
achieving the primary science goals and receive a Category A, B or L rating to be
considered for acceptance. No NICER observing time will be awarded without
the need for NuSTAR observing time on the same target. NICER data sets
obtained through approved joint NuSTAR/NICER proposals have the standard
NuSTAR exclusive-use period and will be released publicly via the HEASARC
data archive. Individuals considering submission of a Cycle 9 proposal for joint
NuSTAR/ NICER observations should consult the NICER Cycle 5 approved
NuSTAR target list prior to submission of their proposal. Duplicate observations
of the same targets by NuSTAR will typically not be awarded;

D.9-6
 • Proposals requesting joint observing time with XMM-Newton, Neil Gehrels Swift,
and/or NICER observatories will have an additional page of text to describe the
proposed program.
• Proposals requesting coordinated observations with other space- or ground-
based observatories will be designated time-constrained and subject to the
restrictions described in Section 1.3.3.
1.3.2 Multi-Year Programs [Updated October 7, 2022]
The PI may request that observations (including ToO observations) be scheduled over a
two-cycle period. Multi-year programs must be strongly justified in the proposal text. If a
multi-year program, in particular one including ToO observations, is not strongly justified
in the proposal text it might be evaluated as a Cycle 9-only proposal. No multi-year
programs awarded in Cycle 9 will be carried beyond Cycle 10, i.e., all observations must
occur in Cycles 9 and 10. Multi-year joint programs with XMM-Newton, Neil Gehrels
Swift or NICER may also be proposed. Joint programs with NICER may be for Cycle 9
only. All approved multi-year programs must be category A, B or L. It is anticipated that
Cycle 10 observations will commence on or around June 1, 2024, and have a
duration of one year (pending the results of the 2022 Senior Review).
1.3.3 Time-Constrained Observations
Time-constrained observations are defined as observations that must be performed
within a specific time window. This includes phase-constrained observations and
coordinated observing campaigns with ground-based or space-based facilities. Time-
constrained observations are subject to the following limitations:
• Time-constrained observations designated Category A, B or L will be given
highest priority for scheduling during Cycle 9 (or Cycle 9 and 10 for multi-year
programs). Time-constrained observations of Category C targets will be executed
on a best-effort basis and therefore should be scientifically justified if the time
constraint is not satisfied.
• The time constraints for multi-year programs can occur in Cycle 9 and/or Cycle
10.
• Time-constrained Category A, B or L observations that are not part of a multi-
year program and are not scheduled during Cycle 9 may be carried over to Cycle
10 where warranted by scientific or operational circumstances (e.g., in the case
of coordinated observations with other space- or ground-based observatories).
Category C time-constrained observations not scheduled during Cycle 9 will not
be carried over to Cycle 10.
• Monitoring programs are defined as investigations requiring two or more
observations of the same target, each of which is considered a "visit". For such
programs, the time interval between successive visits must be ≥ 14 hours. Note
that programs in which the time interval between any two successive visits is ≤ 1
week will be designated as time-constrained.
• Note that proposed Neil Gehrels Swift or NICER observing time can include
monitoring that precedes, follows, and/or (for ToOs) triggers NuSTAR observing
time.

D.9-7
For coordinated or time-constrained observations, it is the proposer's responsibility to
inform the NuSTAR SOC of the observing time windows as soon as possible, but at a
minimum of one month before initiation of the observations. In cases where
observations involve coordination with other space-based observatories, the NuSTAR
SOC will be responsible for communicating detailed schedule constraints with the
relevant operations team(s).
1.3.4 Target of Opportunity (ToO) Observations
A total of up to 1 Ms of NuSTAR Cycle 9 observing time will be made available for
proposals to observe ToOs, subject to the constraints listed below. Individuals
interested in submitting ToO proposals should note the following:
• Proposals must provide exact, detailed trigger criteria and a credible estimate
(including justification) of the probability of triggering the ToO during Cycle 9 (and
Cycle 10 for multi-year proposals);
• Proposers must strongly justify the response time required to meet the scientific
objectives on the Astrophysics Research Knowledgebase (ARK)/Remote
Proposal System (RPS) proposal submission form
(http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/). Note that the minimum response time that
may be specified for NuSTAR observations is 48 hours; proposals will be
evaluated based on this criterion. However, a more rapid response time may be
requested by the PI; such requests will be accommodated on a best-effort basis;
• The observations must have an astrophysical trigger and be designated as
Category A;
• Proposals for ToO observations that can be triggered from a class of objects or
set of potential targets are permitted;
• Active ToO programs submitted to the Chandra/NuSTAR, XMM-
Newton/NuSTAR, INTEGRAL/NuSTAR, Neil Gehrels Swift/NuSTAR or
NICER/NuSTAR GO Program Calls for Proposals approved prior to the Cycle 9
solicitation will take precedence over NuSTAR Cycle 9 proposals with the same
targets and trigger criteria.
• ToO programs accepted as part of the NuSTAR Cycle 9 GO program will take
precedence over unsolicited ToOs.
• In the case of Large Program ToOs with multiple observations, only the initial
observation is counted against the 1 Ms maximum ToO exposure time (since
subsequent observations are considered to be monitoring observations).
It is the responsibility of the PI of an accepted ToO proposal to alert the NuSTAR SOC
when the trigger conditions for their accepted ToO have been satisfied. This is done via
submission of a NuSTAR ToO Request Form; detailed information is available at
http://nustar.caltech.edu/page/too_policy. Prior to submission of this form, the PI should
verify the visibility of the target at
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/NuSTAR_Public/NuSTAROperationSite/CheckConstraint.php
Multi-year ToO programs may be triggered in Cycle 9 or Cycle 10. Accepted Cycle 9
ToO observations not designated as multi-year can only be triggered until the end of the
cycle and observations not triggered during Cycle 9 will not be carried over to Cycle 10.
Such observations may be re-proposed to a subsequent cycle. Data from approved

D.9-8
Cycle 9 ToO observations will have a nominal six-month exclusive-use period after
which the data will be placed in the public archive.
Note that requests for observations of unsolicited ToOs may be submitted via the
NuSTAR ToO web site (http://www.srl.caltech.edu/NuSTAR_Public/GO/GOsubmit.php).
Decisions regarding the disposition of unsolicited ToO requests will be made by the
NuSTAR Principal Investigator or official designee. Requests for such unsolicited ToO
observations are ineligible for funding under the NuSTAR GO Program.
1.3.5 Large Programs [Updated October 7, 2022]
A total of up to 2 Ms of NuSTAR Cycle 9 observing time will be made available for the
Large Program (LP) category. The minimum total exposure time for LP proposals is 500
ks, and such proposals are allowed an additional page of text to describe the proposed
program. Data from approved Cycle 9 LPs will have a nominal six-month exclusive-use
period after which the data will be placed in the public archive. A single-trigger ToO may
be proposed as part of an LP An LP may be a ToO but it can only have a single
trigger (e.g., where a long observation is needed after the an initial trigger).
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 General Information [Updated October 7, 2022]
It is anticipated that at least not more than $4M will be available for the support of
General Observations during Cycle 9. Proposals ranked as Category A, B or L by the
Phase-1 peer review panel will be given the highest priority for funding. However,
limited support will be made available for Category C proposals that are executed
during Cycle 9. NuSTAR GO funding is open to individuals who are identified as
Principal Investigators and employed at U.S. institutions. The amount of funding
awarded to PIs of Category A, B or L proposals will be based upon NASA’s evaluation
of the cost reasonableness of the Phase-2 cost proposal. In addition, eligible PIs of
proposals with Category C targets that are executed during Cycle 9 can expect awards
of $20,000 to support the publication of the results. NuSTAR science team members
and scientists participating in the NuSTAR mission are eligible for support under this
GO Program. Note that GO proposals from NuSTAR team members who receive
funding from the Project must clearly demonstrate that the proposed investigation is not
redundant with their science team responsibilities. U.S. Co-Is on a U.S. PI proposal can
only receive funding through a subaward from the PI institution. Following the Phase-1
peer review, Phase-2 (cost) proposals will be solicited from eligible PIs and
subsequently evaluated for cost reasonableness via the Phase-2 review process. Joint
NuSTAR/XMM-Newton and NuSTAR/Neil Gehrels Swift, and NuSTAR/NICER Phase-1
proposals selected through this Call for Proposals are eligible for funding solely through
the NuSTAR GO program; the corresponding Phase-2 cost proposals may request
support for the analysis of both the NuSTAR and XMM-Newton, Neil Gehrels Swift, or
NICER data. Such proposals should not be submitted to the U.S. XMM-Newton General
Observer Facility nor to the Neil Gehrels Swift or NICER Projects.
Proposals from non-U.S. institutions are acceptable and will only be considered on a
no-exchange-of-funds basis, as is set forth at NFS 1835.016. Non-U.S. proposals will

D.9-9
be reviewed to the same standards as proposals from U.S. institutions and selected
solely by NASA.
2.2 Proposal Submission and Evaluation
The NuSTAR GO program utilizes a two-phase proposal process. Phase-1 proposals
shall provide a detailed description of the proposed investigation, including the
requested NuSTAR observation(s) and associated scientific/technical justification. The
Phase-1 peer review will be executed in a "dual-anonymous" fashion, where not only
are proposers unaware of the identity of the members on the review panel, but the
reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams (see Section 2.2.1).
U.S. PI's whose Phase-1 proposals with targets assigned a Category A, B or L rating by
the peer review panel will be invited to submit a Phase-2 (cost) proposal. Category C
programs do not require a Phase-2 proposal. Subject to acceptance of the associated
Phase-2 cost submission, proposals for standard-mode observations (excluding
proposals involving ToO or time-constrained observations) assigned a Category A, B or
L rating will be eligible for funding immediately. Due to the uncertainty of their execution,
the remaining accepted Phase-2 proposals will become eligible for funding only after the
proposed observations have been carried out. Phase-2 proposals must include a
detailed budget and accompanying narrative, providing a detailed description of how the
requested funds will be used to achieve the goals outlined in the proposal. It is
nominally expected that the PI of the Phase-1 proposal will serve as the Phase-2
proposal PI; however, for administrative purposes, an alternate individual from the
Phase-1 PI's institution may serve as PI on the Phase-2 proposal. All proposal materials
shall be submitted electronically, as specified below.
Instructions for the formatting and content of ROSES proposals are given in the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and, for topics not addressed there, refer to the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. Proposers must follow these instructions, except where they
are overridden by the instructions given in the Astrophysics Research Program
Overview (D.1) or in this program element. Templates for Phase-1 proposals will be
made available on the NuSTAR GO website at https://nustar.gsfc.nasa.gov. Note that
Phase-1 proposals should have a single-column format.
2.2.1 Specific Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Review Proposals
The overarching objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious
bias in the evaluation of the merit of a proposal. Under this system, not only are
proposers unaware of the identity of the members on the review panel, but the
reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams.
Proposers should consult the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document in the
"Other Documents" section of the NSPIRES website for this program element for
instructions on writing proposals appropriate for dual-anonymous peer review. The
instructions here and in that document supersede the default instructions given in the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposers
will also be required to upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document, which is not anonymized. The "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document contains complete information on how to write this separate document.

D.9-10
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit, without
taking into account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after
the scientific evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The panel may validate the
qualifications of the team in order to assess the team capabilities required to execute a
given proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key factors for PIs to keep in mind are:
• Proposals should eliminate language that identifies the proposers or institutions, as
discussed in the Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals.
• PIs are required to upload a one-page "Expertise and Resources – Not
Anonymized" PDF through ARK as a separate upload when submitting the
anonymized Scientific/Technical/Management section. This document must not be
anonymized.
• NASA understands that dual-anonymous peer review represents a major shift in
the evaluation of General Observer / General Investigator proposals, and as such
there may be occasional slips in writing anonymized proposals. However, NASA
reserves the right to return without review proposals that are particularly egregious
in terms of the identification of the proposing team.
A summary of the key requirements for preparing anonymized Phase-1 proposals is
provided in the table D.9-2 below. Additional information may also be found on the web
at: https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review.
Table D.9-2: Anonymization Instructions
Item Requirement
Anonymization Phase-1 proposals are anonymized. Phase-2 (cost)
proposals are not anonymized.
Submission Phase-1 proposals are submitted through ARK/RPS.
Phase-2 (cost) proposals are submitted through
NSPIRES.
References References should be in the [1], [2] format.
Work plan Include an anonymized one-paragraph work plan in
the main body of the Phase-1 proposal.
Proposal length No change.
Separate "Expertise and This document provides a list of all team members,
Resources - Not their institutional affiliations, roles, expertise, and
Anonymized" document contributions to the work. The document should also
discuss any specific resources that are key to
completing the proposed work.

2.2.2. Submission and Evaluation of Phase-1 NuSTAR GO Proposals

Individuals submitting Phase-1 proposals to the Cycle 9 NuSTAR GO Program must
adhere to the following proposal submission procedures:
• Proposers must submit their Phase-1 proposals (including the accompanying
target forms) electronically through the ARK/RPS website at

D.9-11
 http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/. Instructions for submitting proposals via
ARK/RPS are provided at the HEASARC NuSTAR web site:
http://nustar.gsfc.nasa.gov/;
• The Scientific/Technical/Management section of proposals is limited to four pages
(five pages for LP proposals and proposals requesting joint NuSTAR/XMM-
Newton, NuSTAR/Neil Gehrels Swift or NuSTAR/NICER observations), in lieu of
the default 15 pages specified in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. The
requirement for a table of contents in the body of the proposal is waived. No
supporting material (e.g., Curriculum Vitae, pending/current support) is required or
allowed other than what is specified in the supplemental documentation concerning
the dual-anonymous review procedure.
• The proposals should have margins of no less than 1” on US letter size paper (8.5”
x 11”) and the text body font size should be no smaller than 15 characters per inch.
Figure captions and references may be smaller but must be legible. Optional
LaTeX and MS Word templates for the Scientific/Technical/Management section
consistent with these requirements are provided at http://nustar.gsfc.nasa.gov;
• Proposals must not contain hyperlinks to additional material other than references
to public information that do not identify the PI, Co-Is or their institutions; web
pages with material specific to the proposal such as target lists or stray light
assessments are not allowed.
• The Scientific/Technical/Management section and the "Expertise and Resources –
Not Anonymized" documents must be uploaded to the RPS website as PDF files.
• Proposals not in compliance with these specifications may be returned without
review.
In order to be included in the review of proposals for this cycle of the NuSTAR General
Observer Program, all proposal materials must be submitted electronically by 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Time on the Phase-1 due date provided in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES.
Proposals will be evaluated by a science peer panel with respect to the criteria specified
in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, where it is understood that the
intrinsic merit of a proposal shall include the following factors:
• The extent to which the proposed investigation complements and enhances the
anticipated science return from the NuSTAR mission;
• The suitability of using the NuSTAR observatory and associated data products for
the proposed investigation, including the degree to which the investigation exploits
the unique capabilities of NuSTAR;
• The feasibility of accomplishing the objectives of the proposed investigation with
the requested observations, including the degree to which the proposal satisfies
NuSTAR observational constraints and the feasibility of the proposed analysis
techniques;
• For joint observing proposals, the relevance and feasibility of the corresponding
XMM-Newton, Neil Gehrels Swift or NICER observations;
• The degree to which the proposed observation(s) places demands upon mission
resources;
• In the case of ToO proposals the justification of the trigger probabilities.

D.9-12
 2.2.3 Submission and Evaluation of Phase-2 proposals
Subject to the availability of funding, eligible Phase-1 proposers with Category A, B or L
observations will be contacted by the NuSTAR Program Scientist and invited to submit
a Phase-2 (cost) proposal. Upon notification of selection of a Phase-1 proposal,
proposers eligible for Phase-2 must follow the instructions for submitting a Phase-2
proposal given in the selection notification letter from the Phase-1 review. Phase-2
proposals must be submitted through the NASA NSPIRES electronic proposal website
(http://nspires.nasaprs.com) by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) of
the proposing organization following the instructions in the Summary of Solicitation of
this NRA. The cost proposal shall consist of a "Budget Details" section (maximum of two
pages) and a "Budget Narrative" section (maximum of two pages).
NASA program personnel (as opposed to peer reviewers) will evaluate the Phase-2 cost
proposals for cost reasonableness and will also compare the proposed cost to available
funds as allowed by Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Subject to the
conditions stated above, proposers will be notified regarding the award amount for their
Cycle 9 investigation(s) by NASA upon completion of the Phase-2 review process. Note
that since the Phase-2 proposals will not be peer reviewed, the requirement to redact
the budget information (per Section IV(b)(iii) of the Summary of Solicitation) is waived.
All costs must be included in the proposal. Proposers should note that Phase-2 (cost)
proposals should not be anonymized.
2.3 Supplemental Information
Further details concerning the proposal submission requirements and process can be
found at the NuSTAR General Observer website (http://nustar.gsfc.nasa.gov/). This
website provides instructions for completing the required proposal forms. A detailed
description of the NuSTAR mission, including technical information relevant to the
observatory, instruments, and observation feasibility can be found at
http://nustar.caltech.edu/page/researchers. Answers to frequently asked questions can
be found at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nustar/nustar_faq.html.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for Cycle ~$4M
9 awards
Expected number of new awards 30-50
pending adequate proposals of
merit
Maximum duration of awards 1 year (2 years for multi-year programs)
Due date for Notice of Intent to Option not available.
propose (NOI)
Due date for Phase-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of Funding will be awarded when the data are made
investigation available to the PI. NASA Center proposers
should use October 1, 2023 (4 months after start
of the Cycle 9 observing program) as a planning
date for start of funding.

D.9-13
Page limit for Phase-1 proposals Standard & ToO proposals: 4 pages.
Large Program (LP) and Joint Observing
Proposals: 5 pages.
LaTeX and MS Word templates (available for
download at http://nustar.gsfc.nasa.gov/) can be
used for the proposals. No supporting material
(e.g., pending/current support) will be considered
for Phase-1 except what is specified in the
Guidelines for Anonymous Reviews. Page limits
include figures and references. This instruction
supersedes the limits given in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers.
Relevance This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See Section 3 of the NASA Guidebook for
proposals Proposers and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Detailed instructions for the See
submission of Phase-1 proposals https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nustar/nustar
_prop.html
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, the NASA
submission of Phase-2 proposals Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required in
PDF format; no hard copy is required or
permitted.
Web site for submission of Notice of Option not available.
Intent to propose (NOI)
Web site for submission of Phase-1 http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/nustar/ (Help
proposal and required forms Desk available at:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/help/)
Web site for submission of Phase-1 Option not available.
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of Phase-1 Option not available.
proposal via Grants.gov
Web site for submission of Phase-2 http://nspires.nasaprs.com; See Section 2.2.3
proposals

D.9-14
Programmatic information may be Hashima Hasan
obtained from the NuSTAR Program Astrophysics Division
Scientist Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0692
Email: hhasan@nasa.gov
Technical questions concerning this Tod Strohmayer
program element may be directed to NuSTAR Mission Scientist
the NuSTAR General Observer Code 662
Program Office Goddard Space Flight Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001
Telephone: (301) 286-1256
Email: tod.e.strohmayer@nasa.gov

D.9-15
D.10 TESS GENERAL INVESTIGATOR – Cycle 6
NOTICE: Amended December 19, 2022. This amendment releases final
text for this program element that was previously "TBD". Phase-1
proposals are due by 4:30 pm Eastern time on April 14, 2023, via the
Astrophysics Research Knowledgebase Remote Proposal System.
TESS Cycle 6 includes the following changes from the previous cycle:
• TESS Cycle 6 observations will be executed between September
2023 and October 2024, during the second year of the second TESS
extended mission.
• Cycle 6 proposals are solicited for targets in Northern Ecliptic
Hemisphere fields and in fields along the ecliptic plane. The
observing plan for Cycle 6 will be posted at
https://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov once finalized.
• Key Project proposals are once again solicited. These programs
have a maximum duration of 24 months, i.e., the remaining duration
of the second TESS extended mission. Only Cycle 6 targets are
solicited at this time, although these programs may propose to
select targets in future cycles as well.
Phase-1 proposals will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process. Thus, proposals must be prepared following the
guidelines in Section 2.2.2 and in the associated "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview
The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) General Investigator (GI) Program
solicits proposals for the acquisition and analysis of new scientific data from the TESS
mission, a NASA Explorer mission that was launched in April 2018 and began science
operations in July 2018. Additionally, proposals that support the acquisition and/or
analysis of scientific data from ground-based telescopes are solicited. Such ground-
based programs must directly support the analysis and/or interpretation of TESS
scientific data.
TESS was designed to monitor the brightness of nearby, bright F, G, K, and M stars to
photometrically search for transiting planets smaller than Neptune. (See Ricker et al.,
2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, for a
detailed description). In its prime mission, TESS targeted more than 200,000 stars
spread over the celestial sphere with a photometric sensitivity sufficient to permit the
detection of transiting planets with a radius less than 2.5 Earth radii. Now in its
Extended Mission as of July 2020, TESS continues to enable the search for transiting
planets. TESS’s high-precision, continuous baseline photometric capability is also well
suited to time domain astronomy, which includes studies of stellar variability and
asteroseismology research, and analyses of both Galactic and extragalactic
astrophysical sources.

D.10-1
Observations associated with the TESS GI Cycle 6 solicitation will be executed from
September 2023 until October 2024, covering observing sectors 70 - 83
(https://tess.mit.edu/tess-year-6-observations/).
There is no exclusive-use period associated with the data from TESS observations. All
mission products will be made available through the Space Telescope Science
Institute’s Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST) public archive once data
processing and validation are complete.
Funding through the NASA TESS GI Program is available only to scientists at U.S.
institutions who are identified as the Principal Investigators (PIs). No sub-awards will be
made by NASA except in the case of Civil Servant Co-Is, who are eligible for direct sub-
awards. U.S. based Co-Is on foreign-led proposals do not qualify for funding. Funding
for accepted target proposals will typically be initiated only after the first data collected
for the proposed investigation are uploaded to the MAST.
1.2 The TESS Mission
A detailed discussion of the TESS prime and extended missions and their scientific
objectives can be found at https://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov. The TESS instrument consists of
four wide field-of-view (FOV) cameras, each of which observes a 24x24 square degree
field. The cameras are aligned with their fields adjacent, such that the instantaneous
field-of-view is 24x96 square degrees.
During Cycle 6, TESS will continue its extended mission and will observe each sector
continuously for two spacecraft orbits (2x approximately 14 days), with the boresight of
the four-camera array pointed nearly antisolar. Data are planned to be downlinked twice
per orbit (approximately every 7 days). Data products collected will include full-frame
images (FFIs) every 200 seconds, 120-second cadence sub-image data for
approximately 8,000 pre-selected GI targets per sector, and 20-second cadence sub-
images for approximately 2,000 pre-selected GI targets per sector. These GI targets are
awarded through the GI program. There are no restrictions on what targets can be
proposed as part of GI programs as long as they are visible in the sectors to be
observed in Cycle 6. Additional targets will be observed at 120- and 20-second cadence
that include Director’s Discretionary Targets (DDT) and exoplanet targets chosen by the
TESS project team.
Cycle 6 will observe fields in both the Northern Ecliptic Hemisphere and in fields along
the ecliptic plane. A total of 14 sectors will be observed in Cycle 6. As with some
previous Northern Hemisphere fields, it may be necessary to shift the pointing of several
sectors in Cycle 6 away from the ecliptic plane to avoid excessive contamination by
stray Earth- and Moon-light from entering Cameras 1 and 2. The final observing plan for
Cycle 6 will be posted at https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/tess/proposing-
investigations.html and https://tess.mit.edu/observations/ prior to the GI proposal
deadline to enable accurate target selection for Cycle 6.
1.2.1 Observing Modes and Data Products
Data for specific targets are saved onboard and transmitted as "postage stamp" sub-
images, each with an area sufficiently large to accommodate the optimal aperture for
the astrophysical target and pixels from which the local background can be calculated.

D.10-2
Extended or very bright objects can be accommodated with more appropriately chosen
sub-image pixels. Postage stamp observations are collected at either 120- or 20-second
cadence. Additionally, stacked images from the full 24x96 square degree field-of-view of
all four TESS cameras is collected at 200-second cadence.
The TESS data are processed with a data reduction pipeline based on software
developed for the Kepler mission. This pipeline performs pixel-level calibration,
background subtraction, aperture photometry, identification, and removal of systematic
errors for both 120- and 20-second cadence postage stamp data, and the search for
transit signals in the 120-second cadence postage stamp data. The pipeline calibration
corrects for bias level, smear, flat fielding, dark current, background, and instrument
noise, and identifies galactic cosmic ray hits inside the optimal target aperture.
FFI and postage stamp observations consist of 2 second frames, coadded onboard the
TESS spacecraft to a cadence of either 20, 120, or 200 seconds. For cadences of 120
or 200 seconds, onboard Cosmic-Ray Mitigation (CRM; see TESS Instrument
Handbook Section 5.1) is used. When CRM is used, for each pixel time-series in any
dataset, CRM will remove the highest and lowest values from 10 frames before
coadding, in order to remove cosmic ray hits from the dataset. For 20-second postage
stamp data, this process is not used. As such, the 20-second data has different noise
properties than the 120-second data and will contain more cosmic ray events. For any
target with 20-second data with no CRM, the mission will also provide data at 120-
second with CRM.
Data distribution and archival services are performed through the Mikulski Archive for
Space Telescopes (MAST). Final data products available to GI observers include raw
and calibrated target pixel files, pipeline-produced light curves for each postage stamp
target, and raw and calibrated images for the FFI data.
Data are archived in standard FITS formats for images and light curves. Proposers
should be aware that pipeline-generated light curves may not be optimal for all science
programs and plan their analyses accordingly.
In addition to the standard mission products, there are a number of TESS High-Level
Science Products (HLSPs) available at the MAST that can be accessed from
https://archive.stsci.edu/hlsp/. Details on all those products are available at that
webpage.
1.2.2 Instrumentation and Technical Capabilities
TESS has neither changeable filters nor dispersing elements. Photometry is taken
through a broad bandpass ranging from 600 to >1000 nm. There is no hard brightness
limit for TESS. Additional details can be found in the Instrument Handbook available
under the Documentation section at the MAST TESS webpage:
https://archive.stsci.edu/missions-and-data/tess.
The Web TESS Viewing Tool can be used to check target visibility windows, estimate
an object’s magnitude in the TESS bandpass, and estimate the 1-sigma noise level:
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/tess/webtess/wtv.py. The TESS-point software
(https://github.com/christopherburke/tess-point) can also be consulted to check the
visibility of desired targets.

D.10-3
1.3 Permitted General Investigator Science
The primary purpose of the TESS GI Program is to enhance and maximize the science
return from TESS. The program facilitates and supports investigations using postage
stamp observations, research undertaken with FFIs, and ground-based supporting
observations of TESS targets, including radial velocity measurements of TESS
exoplanet host stars. Proposals may also be a combination of postage stamp target
requests, FFI analysis, and ground-based observing support. If new observations of
postage stamp targets are required, they must be included in the target list. No targets
are guaranteed to be observed outside of the GI Program. Proposals to the GI Program
may make use of TESS HLSPs as the primary TESS data product used in the analysis.
In this case, proposers should address the potential risk in their proposal that there is no
guarantee that any given HLSP will be publicly available on a regular cadence.
The scientific justification of a GI proposal should focus on a compelling investigation
that requires the collection of new TESS or ground-based data and/or the analysis of
archival ground-based data that supports the analysis and/or interpretation of TESS
data. Where appropriate, proposals should make clear why the proposed investigation
cannot be performed using only archival TESS data. If postage stamp targets are being
proposed, the choice of 20-second or 120-second cadence should be clearly justified.
The proposed TESS GI project must clearly enhance the science return of the TESS
mission. The proposal may include theoretical components, software development,
and/or data simulation that strengthen the proposal, but at least 70% of the work effort
should be focused on new TESS data products, except in the case of ground-based
observing focused proposals. Ground-based observing focused proposals may support
the analysis of TESS data collected in Cycle 6 and/or TESS data already collected in
Cycles 1-5.
Proposed investigations in which the primary emphasis is theory/modeling or analysis of
archival TESS data will be non-compliant. ROSES provides alternative opportunities to
exploit or support the TESS mission in these areas:
● Investigations for which the primary emphasis is theory and/or modeling may be
proposed to the Astrophysics Theory Program (ATP; Program Element D.4), or the
Exoplanet Research Program (XRP; Program Element F.3).
● Investigations for which the primary emphasis is analysis of archival data may be
proposed to the Astrophysics Data Analysis Program (ADAP; Program Element
D.2), or the Exoplanet Research Program (XRP; Program Element F.3).
● Investigations for which the primary emphasis is the collection and/or analysis of
ground-based data may be proposed to the Exoplanet Research Program (XRP;
Program Element F.3), or the NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Research Grants
Program (AAG). However, note that PIs are not permitted to submit proposals that
are substantively similar to both this call and the XRP.
Proposals that are focused on ground-based observing programs must have a clear
science driver and describe how the ground-based component is both feasible and
required for analysis and/or interpretation of TESS data. Programs in this category that
will collect new observations from ground-based facilities, especially

D.10-4
contemporaneously with TESS observations, are particularly encouraged. Proposals
that use only archival ground-based data to support TESS science but do not plan to
collect new ground-based data are allowed; such proposals need to be strongly
justified. Proposals must describe how the funding would be used to support the
collection or analysis of ground-based data in support of TESS, including, for example,
purchasing telescope time, instrument development, travel to observatories, support for
students, etc. Funding awards of all sizes will be considered; the TESS GI Program is
expected to award a total of up to $500,000 to ground-based observing programs.
Proposals must clearly describe the plans to make any new software, higher level data
products and/or supporting data publicly available. Software developed with TESS GI
funds must add value to the TESS science community, be freely available, and have the
source code openly accessible. New ground-based data collected with TESS GI funding
support must be made publicly available in a timely fashion at either the NASA
Exoplanet Science Institute (NExScI) ExoFOP service (https://exofop.ipac.caltech.edu),
as a MAST High-Level Science Product (http://archive.stsci.edu/hlsp/), or at another
publicly accessible and established data archive. Other data products created with
TESS GI funding support should be archived as a MAST High-Level Science Product
(http://archive.stsci.edu/hlsp/).
To foster correlative observations, TESS has established joint observing programs with
the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope (Fermi),
the Neutron Star Interior Composition ExploreR (NICER), and the Neil Gehrels Swift
Observatory (Swift).
Proposals for joint HST observations should be submitted through the HST GO
Program (https://www.stsci.edu/hst/proposing), and the TESS targets will be
recommended by that process.
Proposals for joint Fermi observations should be submitted through the Fermi GI
Program (ROSES D.6), and the TESS targets will be recommended by that review.
Funds for selected programs will be awarded from the Fermi project for joint
investigations in this case (and no funds will be awarded from the TESS project).
Alternatively, proposals that plan to make use of Fermi data may be submitted to the
TESS GI program. TESS GI funding is available to successful U.S.-based investigators
who submit a joint TESS-Fermi proposal. If accepted as a TESS proposal, no funds will
be awarded from the Fermi project.
The TESS GI Program can also award Swift and NICER observations through a joint
program with the Swift and NICER missions. Observing time under this program will be
awarded only to proposals that require use of TESS and Swift and/or NICER to meet
the primary science goals. Proposals to this joint program must clearly justify the need
for Swift and/or NICER data and the amount of Swift/NICER time needed to achieve the
science goals. These proposals must also present a defined plan for analysis of both
the TESS and Swift/NICER data. A minimum of 100 ksec of total Swift time and up to
300 ksec of NICER time will be available through this program. TESS GI funding is
available to successful U.S.-based investigators who request Swift and/or NICER
observing time through the TESS GI process. No funds will be awarded from the Swift
or NICER projects for joint investigations proposed to this TESS Program element.

D.10-5
1.4 Target of Opportunity Observations
The TESS GI Program recognizes the category of Target of Opportunity (ToO)
observations of rapidly evolving phenomena whose occurrence is not predictable at the
time of the TESS proposal due date. Due to TESS mission constraints, ToO-triggered
target definitions can typically only be uploaded to the spacecraft for observations two
or three observing sectors after the initial detection in a given sector. Details regarding
the circumstances in which a ToO is triggered must be included in the scientific
justification and on the target form. ToO proposals must also include an estimated
probability for triggering the observations; the latter will be used in the accounting of
total allocated targets. ToOs remain active during the cycle; ToOs not carried out during
the cycle must be re-proposed to subsequent solicitations. ToO observations would
commence after the spacecraft upload following a trigger. The impact to science of
delays of two or three observing sectors between trigger and data collection must be
addressed in proposals requesting ToO observations.
Note that postage stamp observations of targets at either 120- or 20-second cadence
may be proposed at any time via the DDT program. Decisions regarding DDT proposals
will be made by the TESS Principal Investigator or an official designee. Requests for
such observations are ineligible for funding under the TESS GI Program.
1.5 On-source Monitoring Times
The visibility tool on the TESS Science Support Center website
(https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/tess/webtess/wtv.py) or the TESS-point software
(https://github.com/christopherburke/tess-point) should be consulted to estimate the
duration of visibility of targets to be proposed.
1.6 Target Lists
The TESS Input Catalog (TIC) is intended to contain most optically-persistent objects in
the sky down to the limits of available photometric catalogs, to enable the selection of
optimal targets for planet transit searches, and the calculation of flux contamination in
the TESS sub-image for each target. The TIC has been publicly released (v8.2, as of
October 2021; this version will be superseded by revisions as available) and is
searchable via MAST at http://archive.stsci.edu/tess/. The TIC is documented by
Stassun et al. (2019; https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..138S/abstract),
with recent updates in Paegert et al. (2021; https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04778).
Proposals requesting postage stamp targets are required to submit a target list. Targets
must be submitted electronically, at the same time as the science proposal, via the
Astrophysics Research Knowledgebase (ARK) Remote Proposal System (RPS)
website; https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/. A definition of each column and a
detailed description of the example table can be found at the link to the table template at
the TESS Science Support Center website (http://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov/). If a proposed
target does not appear in the TIC, the information required to append the target to the
TIC must be provided.

D.10-6
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 General Information
$3.0M in Cycle 6 is anticipated to be available to U.S.-based PIs through this
opportunity for the support of approximately 35 Guest Investigations. The performance
period of each award will be up to 2 years for Key Projects and exactly 1 year for all
other categories; PIs will be allowed to request a no-cost extension for one additional
year as needed. This Cycle 6 GI Program will also include targets from unfunded non-
U.S.-based investigations of high merit, as determined by peer review. Additional
General Investigator targets will be drawn from proposals in the Mini category (see
Section 2.2.1) and from proposals that are not selected for funding, if target resources
permit. Scientists participating in the TESS mission, including members of the Follow-
Up Team, are permitted to propose to the GI Program and are subject to the same
program rules as the rest of the science community.
2.2 Proposal Submission and Evaluation
The TESS GI Program uses a two-phase proposal process, consistent with Section
IV(b)vii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. All proposal materials will be submitted
electronically: Phase-1 proposals via ARK/RPS, and Phase-2 proposals via NSPIRES
(see Section 2.2.3 below). The science evaluation is based on the Phase-1 proposal.
There are four categories of Phase-1 proposals, given in Table D.10-1, below. The
Phase-1 peer review will be performed in a "dual-anonymous" manner, i.e., not only are
proposers unaware of the identity of the members on the review panel, but the
reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams (see Section 2.2.2).
Only proposers whose Phase-1 proposals are accepted will be invited to submit budget
proposals in Phase-2. The detailed cost evaluation by NASA is based on the Phase-2
proposal. The scope of the proposed work must remain consistent between Phase-1
and Phase-2 proposals. The PI may change between the Phase-1 and Phase-2
proposal; any changes in the PI or PI institution from Phase-1 to Phase-2 must be
justified in the Phase-2 proposal.
2.2.1 Submission of Phase-1 Proposals to the TESS GI Program
A Phase-1 proposal consists of the science/technical justification; all Phase-1 proposals
must include (at minimum) a one-paragraph work plan in the science/technical section
except for Phase-1 proposals in the Mini category. This work plan must give details on
how the proposed effort will be carried out, including the allocation of effort amongst
investigators (expressed in terms of each participant’s role in the investigation to
preserve the anonymity of the document).
All Phase-1 proposals requesting funds must also provide upon submission a bottom-
line budget number in the provided field of the Astrophysics Research Knowledgebase
(ARK) RPS submission form; this number should not be included in the body of the
Phase-1 proposal. The detailed cost evaluation will be deferred until Phase-2.
There are four categories of investigations: Mini, Small, Large, and Key Projects.
Mini proposals may request only a small number of targets and are not eligible for
funding. A maximum of 1,000 120-second cadence targets and up to 50 20-second
cadence targets may be requested by any single Mini proposal. Requests for ToOs,

D.10-7
joint programs with Swift, NICER and Fermi, and ground-based focused programs are
not permitted in Phase-1 proposals submitted to the Mini category. The four categories
are summarized in Table D.10-1.
Table D.10-1. Categories of Phase-1 Investigations
Category Summary
Mini Programs that propose to ensure a
specific small set of targets are included
in the TESS GI target list, have a limited
scope, and/or augment existing projects
with targets. This category is designed
to be relatively low effort to submit, but
is not eligible for funding.
Small Programs that result in new scientific
insights but are relatively limited in
scope. Unlikely to require the
development of a large amount of
software, or new analysis methods.
Large Programs that have significant scope
and complexity. May require significant
development of new techniques or
software. These programs are expected
to provide additional benefit to the
science community beyond publishing
scientific papers.
Key Projects that expect to require large
Project investments of time and resources over
more than one year, with outcomes that
significantly increase the scientific
output of the TESS mission. These
projects are expected to provide
additional benefit to the science
community beyond publishing scientific
papers.
Maximum award, page limit
No funding. Up to 2 pages are
allotted for the
Science/Technical/Management
(S/T/M) Section.
Up to $70,000. Up to 4 pages
for the S/T/M Section.
Up to $250,000. Up to 6 pages
for the S/T/M Section. The
additional space compared with
a Small proposal should be
used to describe the benefits
that the program will provide to
the science community,
including a description and
schedule of the project
deliverables.
Up to $250,000 per year for 2
years. Up to 6 pages for the
S/T/M Section. The additional
space compared with a Small
proposal should be used to
describe the benefits that the
program will provide to the
science community, including a
description and schedule of the
project deliverables.

Awards for most investigations (i.e., focused analysis and/or relatively small numbers of
targets) are expected to be capped at approximately $70,000. Investigations requiring
more complex analysis, specialized software development, or a large number of targets,
may require funding substantially above the average award (i.e., up to $250,000 per
award). Key Projects are anticipated to be large multi-year programs with very broad

D.10-8
scopes (up to 2 years and up to $250,000 per year). Key Project and Large programs
are expected to provide additional benefit to the science community beyond publishing
scientific papers (e.g., software releases or other value-added data products). Key
Project and Large proposals will need to provide a compelling justification for the higher
funding level, including a detailed work plan that sufficiently justifies the expected work
effort. Approximately $2.5 million will be available to support standard Small, Large, and
Key Project Cycle 6 programs. Standard investigations focused on the analysis of
archival TESS data from Cycles 1-5 are not compliant with this solicitation and should
be submitted to the next ROSES solicitations for either the Astrophysics Data Analysis
Program (ADAP; ROSES D.2) or the Exoplanets Research Program (XRP; ROSES
F.3).
Approximately $500,000 will be available to programs that focus on ground-based
observing. Ground-based focused proposals should be identified in ARK/RPS as such
and will be reviewed in a panel separately from other Phase-1 proposals submitted to
the TESS GI Program. Proposers should identify their program as Small, Large, or a
Key Project. Mini programs are not permitted in this category. Proposers of ground-
based TESS investigations may make use of archival TESS data from Cycles 1-5 in
their programs but may not submit a proposal to the ROSES Exoplanets Research
Program (XRP; ROSES F.3) that would violate the prohibition on duplicate proposals in
Section 2 of the Astrophysics Research Program Overview (D.1).
To summarize, proposers to the TESS GI Program should review Table D.10-1 and
must adhere to the following Phase-1 proposal submission procedures:
● All Phase-1 proposals must be submitted via the Astrophysics Research
Knowledgebase (ARK) Remote Proposal System (RPS) website at
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/. Instructions for doing so will be provided at
the TESS Science Support Center web site (http://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov/);
● Target tables are to be submitted through ARK/RPS and must follow the format
given on the TESS Science Support Center web site (http://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov/);
● The Scientific/Technical/Management section of Phase-1 proposals is limited to
two pages for Mini programs, four pages for Small programs and six pages for
Large programs and Key Projects, instead of the default 15 pages specified in the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers. The requirement for a table of contents in the
body of the Phase-1 proposal is waived. References are not included in the page
limits. The Scientific/Technical/Management section must be uploaded to the
ARK/RPS website as a PDF file.
● All Phase-1 proposals should adhere to the dual-anonymous proposal guidelines
(see Section 2.2.2).
● No supporting material (e.g., Curriculum Vitae, pending/current support) is required
or allowed other than what is specified in the supplemental documentation
concerning the dual-anonymous review procedure (see Section 2.2.2).
● Optional Latex and MS Word templates for the Scientific/Technical/Management
section will be provided on the TESS Science Support Center web site
(http://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov/). While optional, proposers are encouraged to review
the templates for further guidance on Phase-1 proposal content.

D.10-9
 ● For Small and Large programs and Key Projects, the
Scientific/Technical/Management section must include a minimum of one
paragraph describing the work plan (expressed in terms of each participant’s role
in the investigation to preserve the anonymity of the document). Investigators who
are proposing to continue a program that was selected for funding in one or more
previous cycles are no longer required to justify continuation of the program in their
Phase-1 proposal. Mini programs do not require a work plan.
Phase-1 proposals from non-U.S. institutions are acceptable and will only be considered
on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. Non-U.S. proposals will be reviewed to the same
standards as proposals from U.S. institutions and selected solely by NASA.
All Phase-1 proposal materials must be submitted electronically by 4:30 pm Eastern
time via ARK/RPS on the due date for this program given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES.
Note that the 4:30 pm deadline (and the website for submission) are different from and
supersede the defaults from the Guidebook and ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
2.2.2 Specific Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Phase-1 Proposals
The overarching objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious
bias in the evaluation of the merit of a proposal. Under this system, not only are
proposers unaware of the identity of the members on the review panel, but the
reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams.
Proposers should consult the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document in the
"Other Documents" section on the NSPIRES of this program element for instructions on
writing proposals appropriate for dual-anonymous peer review. The instructions here
and in that document supersede the default instructions given in the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers and the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposers will also be required
to upload a separate one-page "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document,
which is not anonymized. The "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document
contains complete information on how to write this separate document.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit, without
initially taking into account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only
after the scientific evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with
the "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The panel will validate
the qualifications of the team in order to allow the reviewers to assess the team
capabilities required to execute a given proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key factors for PIs to keep in mind are:
• Proposals should eliminate language that identifies the proposers or institutions, as
discussed in the Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals.
• Proposals requesting funding to support ground-based observing programs should
provide sufficient details of the instrumentation or facilities available for the
proposed work to allow the facility access to be adequately assessed. Facilities
can be named, but the institution through which the proposers have access should
not be identified in the anonymized Scientific/Technical/Management section of the
proposal.

D.10-10
 • PIs are required to upload a one-page "Expertise and Resources – Not
Anonymized" PDF through ARK as a separate upload when submitting the
anonymized Scientific/Technical/Management section. This document must not be
anonymized.
• NASA understands that dual-anonymous peer review represents a major shift in
the evaluation of General Observer / General Investigator proposals, and as such
there may be occasional slips in writing anonymized proposals. However, NASA
reserves the right to return without review proposals that are particularly egregious
in terms of the identification of the proposing team.
A summary of the key requirements for preparing anonymized Phase-1 proposals is
provided in the table below. Additional information may also be found on the web at:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review.
Table 2. Phase-1 Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Preparation
Item Requirement
Anonymization Phase-1 proposals are anonymized. Phase-2 (cost)
proposals are not anonymized.
Submission Phase-1 proposals are submitted through ARK/RPS.
Phase-2 (cost) proposals are submitted through
NSPIRES.
References References should be in the [1], [2] format.
Work plan Include an anonymized (at minimum) one-paragraph
work plan in the main body of the Phase-1 proposal.
Proposal length No change.
Separate "Expertise This one-page document provides a list of all team
and Resources - Not members, their roles, organizations, expertise, and
Anonymized" contributions to the work. The document should also
document discuss any specific resources that the team has access
to that are key to completing the proposed work.
2.2.3 Evaluation of Phase-1 Proposals submitted to the TESS GI Program
Phase-1 Proposals will be evaluated by a peer evaluation panel with respect to
Relevance and Merit, as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
The evaluation of intrinsic merit of a proposal shall include:
● The suitability of using new TESS data products for the proposed investigation
(not applicable for ground-based observing focused programs, although ground-
based programs should make clear the need for ground-based data in order to
analyze or interpret TESS data);
● The extent to which the investigation complements and enhances the anticipated
science return from the TESS mission;
● The degree to which the proposed investigation places demands upon mission
resources; and
● The degree to which the proposed investigation capitalizes on the unique
capabilities of TESS.

D.10-11
 2.2.4 Submission and Evaluation of Phase-2 proposals
Subject to the availability of funding, successful Phase-1 proposers will be contacted on
behalf of the TESS Program Scientist and invited to submit a budget proposal in Phase-
2. Upon notification of selection of a Phase-1 proposal, a proposer must respond as
follows.
Follow the instructions for submitting a Phase-2 proposal given in the selection
notification from the Phase-1 review. Phase-2 proposals must be submitted via
NSPIRES (https://nspires.nasaprs.com/) by an Authorized Organizational
Representative (AOR) of the proposing organization. The budget proposal will consist of
a Budget Details section (maximum of two pages) and a Narrative section (maximum of
two pages). The funding amount requested in the Phase-2 cost proposal may not
exceed the amount proposed in Phase-1. Any changes in the PI or PI institution from
Phase-1 to Phase-2 must be justified in the Narrative section of the proposal.
NASA program personnel will evaluate the Phase-2 cost proposals for cost
reasonableness and compare the proposed cost to available funds and consistent with
Section VI(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Note that since the Phase-2
proposals will not be peer reviewed, the requirement to redact the budget information
(per Section IV(b)(iii) of the Summary of Solicitation) is waived. All costs must be
included in the proposal. Requests for major equipment purchases must be supported
with a vendor quote. Proposers should note that Phase-2 (cost) proposals should not be
anonymized.
2.3 Supplemental Information
Further details concerning the proposal submission requirements and process can be
found at http://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov/, the TESS Science Support Center website. This
website provides a detailed mission description; technical information about the TESS
mission, instrument, and observation feasibility; and instructions for completing the
required proposal forms. The Web TESS Viewing Tool found at the TESS Science
Support Center website (http://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov/) and the TESS-point software
(https://github.com/christopherburke/tess-point) provide the capability to see when user-
provided TESS targets will be observed. The Web TESS Viewing Tool additionally
provides estimated TESS magnitudes and photometric precisions for point sources.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for $3.0M with $500,000 anticipated to be awarded to
first year of new awards ground-based observing focused programs.
Number of new awards
~35 (made up of approximately 1 Key Project, 6
pending adequate proposals of
large programs and 28 small programs).
merit
Maximum duration of awards 1 year (large and small programs), 2 years (Key
Projects)
Due date for Phase-1 4:30 pm on the due date given in Tables 2 and 3 of
proposals ROSES.

D.10-12
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for Phase-1
proposals
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
Detailed instructions for the
preparation and submission of
Phase-2 proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
Phase-1 proposal and required
forms
Web site for submission of
Phase-2 proposals
Programmatic information may
be obtained from the TESS
Deputy Program Scientist
Technical questions
concerning this program
element may be directed to the
TESS General Investigator
Program Lead
Cycle 6 observations are expected to start in
September 2023. Funding will typically be released
to the PI after the first data collected for the
proposed investigation are uploaded to the MAST.
The earliest such date is approximately October
2023.
2 pages for Mini programs, 4 pages for Small
programs and 6 pages for Large programs and Key
Projects. See Section 2.2.1 for details. See Section
2.2.2 for Guidelines for preparing proposals for
Anonymous Reviews.
This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Selected proposers will be invited to submit a
Phase-2 proposal via NSPIRES. See Section 2.2.3.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard
copy is required or permitted.
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/
Help Desk available at
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/help/
http://nspires.nasaprs.com; See Section 2.2.3
Joshua Pepper
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-774-6180
Email: joshua.a.pepper@nasa.gov
Knicole Colón
Code 667
Goddard Space Flight Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001
Telephone: 301-286-4560
Email: knicole.colon@nasa.gov
D.10-13
D.11 NICER GENERAL OBSERVER – CYCLE 5
NOTICE: Amended May 20, 2022. The due date for Phase-1 proposals
(submitted by 4:30 p.m. Eastern time via ARK RPS) has been delayed
to September 14, 2022. New text has been added to Sections 1.1, 1.3.3,
and 2.3, regarding joint observing programs with NuSTAR, Swift and
TESS. New text is in bold and deleted text is struck through.
In Cycle 5, all Phase-1 proposals submitted to the NICER General
Observer Program will be evaluated following a dual-anonymous peer
review process. Proposals must be prepared following the guidelines
in Section 2.2.2 and in the associated "Guidelines for Anonymous
Proposals" document.
Due to the nature of the proposed investigations, NICER GO – Cycle 5
proposals are not required to include a Data Management Plan.
The execution of NICER GO – Cycle 5 is contingent upon the outcome
of the 2022 Astrophysics Senior Review of Operating Missions.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview [Amended May 20, 2022]
The Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) is an X-ray experiment on the
International Space Station (ISS) dedicated to high-resolution timing and spectroscopy
of neutron stars and other rapidly variable X-ray sources in the 0.2–12 keV band. NASA
is issuing this call for Cycle 5 of the NICER General Observer (GO) program. Proposals
for observations with NICER addressing all areas of astrophysics are solicited, with at
least 7.5 Ms of available time and a limited amount of funding available in Cycle 5.
The NICER mission has established joint observing programs with NASA’s
Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR), Neil Gehrels Swift observatory
(Swift), and Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), to allow NICER GO
proposers to request correlated observations. For Cycle 5, a total of up to 400 ks
of NuSTAR observing time, up to 200 ks of Neil Gehrels Swift observing time, and
up to fifty 20-second cadence and 300 2-minute cadence TESS windows are
available through this program. Proposals requesting joint observations must
clearly justify the need for the NuSTAR/Swift/TESS observations to accomplish
the science goals of the investigation.
Proposers also have the opportunity to request coordinated NuSTAR observations of
their proposed NICER targets. A total of up to 400 ks of NuSTAR observing time is
available within this Cycle.
Proposals will be submitted in two stages, with Phase 1 focusing on the science goals
and observation parameters. Selected Phase-1 proposers will be invited to submit a
budget for Phase 2. Proposers may request, and must justify, an exclusive-use period
of up to 6 months for GO data in this Cycle; by default, data will be subject to the
existing NICER data-release policy (validated data are made available in the public
HEASARC archive within two weeks of acquisition), with no exclusive-use period.
Proposal merit is evaluated without regard to whether exclusive use is requested.

D.11-1
Proposers are reminded that Sections III (b and c) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation cover rules concerning foreign participation, as well as certain restrictions
concerning bilateral participation, collaboration, or coordination with China or any
Chinese-owned entity. See also ROSES FAQ #14 and the ROSES PRC FAQ.
1.2 The NICER Mission
NICER is a Principal Investigator (PI)-led NASA Mission of Opportunity in the
Astrophysics Explorers Program. The PI institution is NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center, which is responsible for the overall direction of the program and for project
management. Science partners include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Kavli Institute. The NICER Science and Mission Operations Center (SMOC) is located
at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
The NICER payload was launched aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket to the ISS on June
3, 2017, and is installed externally on ISS ExPRESS Logistics Carrier 2, site 7
(starboard). It offers active pointing over nearly the full hemisphere about the zenith
direction.
NICER was designed to perform high time-resolution and spectroscopic observations in
the 0.2 12 keV energy range to study the physics of ultra-dense matter in the cores of
neutron stars. It carries an X-ray Timing Instrument (XTI) that employs concentrator
optics and detectors to register X-ray photon energies and times of arrival. The XTI is a
non-imaging instrument that collects X-rays from within a single 6 arcmin (FWHM) field
of view. NICER science data consist of photon energies and detection times.
NICER’s XTI is an assembly of 56 X-ray concentrators (XRC) and detectors, of which
52 are functional on orbit. NICER’s pointing system enables XTI to track and slew
between targets over nearly 2π steradians. Each XRC collects photons over a large
(~40 cm2) effective geometric area from a ~30 arcmin2 patch of sky, and focuses them
onto a small silicon drift detector (SDD). Together, this assemblage provides a photon
counting capability with large effective area, high time resolution, moderate energy
resolution, high throughput, and relatively low background.
SDDs offer energy resolution typical of silicon-based detectors, approaching the Fano
limit. The XTI on-orbit performance is better than ~150 eV energy resolution at 6 keV
and ~80 eV at 1 keV. The payload-level photon time-stamping uncertainty is less than
100 nsec RMS. NICER’s event background is dominated below 2 keV by the diffuse
cosmic X-ray background (0.3 cts/sec over the 31.5 arcmin2 non-imaging field of view at
high Galactic latitudes), and by unrejected particle background at higher energies (~0.1
cts/sec/keV across the NICER passband). Table D.11-1, below, summarizes the most
important NICER characteristics for proposal preparation.
Details of the NICER payload and instrument design can be found at the NICER
documentation web page (https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nicer/nicer_docs.html)
and the NICER mission paper (Gendreau, K.C., et al. 2016, Proc. SPIE 9905, download
PDF file). Simulated NICER count rates and spectra can be derived using the
WebPIMMS and WebSPEC tools.
Please note that investigations making use of the Station Explorer for X-ray Timing and
Navigation Technology (SEXTANT) algorithm are not supported by this call.

D.11-2
 Table D.11-1: Key NICER Performance Parameters
Parameter Value
Energy range 0.2–12 keV
Non-imaging angular resolution (HPD) 6.3 arcmin
Energy resolution at 1 keV ~ 80 eV
Energy resolution at 6 keV ~ 150 eV
Sensitivity (0.5–10 keV) (104 s, 5σ) 1 x 10−13 erg cm−2 s−1
Background (0.25–10 keV) ~ 1 counts s−1 (typical)
Temporal resolution < 100 ns RMS (absolute)
Target of opportunity response Within 4 hours during regular business
hours; otherwise, within 72 hours
Slew rate 1 s−1
Minimum Sun angle 60º, for optimal XTI performance.
Targets may be observed between 45º
and 60º from the Sun, but with some
degradation of spectral and timing
performance.
1.3 Available GO Time and Visibility Constraints
The expected total amount of observing time available for Cycle 5 of the NICER GO
program is at least 7.5 Ms; additional time may be allocated to accommodate demand
as merited by high-quality proposals. Proposed NICER observations may span both
Cycles 5 and 6 (March 1, 2023 – February 28, 2025), but requests for observations
extending beyond the end of Cycle 5 in February 2024 must be scientifically justified.
Proposals may only request joint NuSTAR observations during Cycle 5. NICER
observations for all of Cycles 5 and 6 will be contingent on mission extension via the
2022 Senior Review process.
It is anticipated that approximately 50 GO investigations will be selected for NICER
Cycle 5. The remaining observing time will be used for multi-year GO observations from
Cycle 4, NICER time granted through the NuSTAR GO program, legacy science, PI
discretionary time, Targets of Opportunity (ToOs), unanticipated science not covered by
the GO program, and calibration and background observations. A short-term schedule
of planned NICER observations can be found at
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nicer/schedule/nicer_sts_current.html.
Accepted targets will be designated as Category A, B, or C. Assuming nominal
operational efficiency, we anticipate that all Category A and B observations will be
executed during Cycle 5. Category C observations will be completed on a best-effort
basis.
Proposers should be aware that ISS structure, orbit inclination (51.6) and altitude
(approximately 250 miles), together with Sun/Moon/Earth avoidance criteria, impose
significant target visibility constraints, allowing uninterrupted exposures of at most 2.5 ks
per 92-minute ISS orbit, but typically half that amount. Guest observers should request
total exposure times necessary for the proposed science goals, excluding observational
efficiency factors (e.g., Earth occultations and South Atlantic Anomaly passages) in their

D.11-3
calculations, unless there is a specific reason why the elapsed time of an observation is
important.
Proposals are subject to the following limitations:
• Proposals requesting time-constrained observations must have designated
Category A targets in order to guarantee scheduling (see Section 1.3.1).
• Proposals requesting coordinated observations with other space- or ground-based
facilities will be considered time-constrained and subject to the restrictions
described in Section 1.3.1.
1.3.1 Time-Constrained Observations
Time-constrained observations are defined as observations that must be performed
within a certain time window. This includes, for example, orbit phase-constrained
requests and coordinated observing campaigns with ground-based or space-based
facilities. Time-constrained observations are subject to the following limitations:
• Time-constrained targets must be designated as Category A to guarantee
scheduling. Time-constrained observations in Categories B and C will be executed
on a best-effort basis.
• NICER's flexibility affords a wide range of monitoring projects. Targets can be
observed multiple times per day, week, month, etc. Proposed observing plans
should use common sense in requesting closely-spaced observations, consistent
with typical target visibilities of 1–2 ks in each of 16 orbits per day. The cadence of
closely-spaced observations cannot be guaranteed.
• Proposers should take note of any constraints associated with NuSTAR
monitoring—specifically, the minimum 20 ks NuSTAR exposure time requirement
for each visit (see Section 1.3.3).
For coordinated and constrained observations, it is the proposer's responsibility to
inform the NICER SMOC of the observing time windows at the earliest possible
opportunity, preferably 1–2 weeks before observations start. Where observations
involve coordination with other space-based observatories, the NICER SMOC will be
responsible for communicating detailed schedule constraints with the relevant
operations team.
1.3.2 ToO Observations
ToO proposals of both known and unknown targets (e.g., "the next black-hole
transient") will be accepted through this NICER Cycle 5 call for proposals. Whether
proposed as a GO investigation or not, ToO requests will be considered by the NICER
project through the submission portal at https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nicer/.
Additional information can be found in NICER’s TOO policy at:
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nicer/proposals/too_policy.html .
1.3.3 Joint Observing Programs NuSTAR observations [Changed May 20, 2022]
NICER has partnered with NuSTAR, Swift, and TESS to offer access to data
across multiple observatories. In Cycle 5, proposers may request up to 400 ks of
time with NuSTAR, up to 200 ks with Swift, or up to 300 2-minute and 50 20-sec
cadence windows for TESS. Joint proposals must provide a compelling

D.11-4
justification of the need for data from the multiple observatories for achieving the
primary science goals of the investigation. Joint observations will not be awarded
without a justified need for NICER observations of the same target. Non-NICER
data sets acquired via joint programs will be released per each mission’s data
release policy. Note that visibility windows across missions will not necessarily
overlap, so requests for strictly simultaneous observations cannot be
guaranteed.
To ensure that observing plans are technically and programmatically feasible for
each mission, proposers are strongly encouraged to consult the technical
information available through
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nicer/proposals/nicer_joint_programs.html
and at the links provided in Section 2.3.
Combined NICER and NuSTAR observations are a powerful diagnostic of high-energy
sources, in the total energy range 0.2–79 keV. NuSTAR has made up to 400 ks
available to NICER Cycle 5 proposers who want to take advantage of this opportunity.
Proposals requesting NuSTAR coordinated observations must demonstrate the unique
value of adding NuSTAR exposures for the proposed science and present a detailed
feasibility case in its support. Joint observations with NuSTAR must be designated as
Category A or B to be approved for observations in Cycle 4. Each target for which
NuSTAR time is requested must also have an associated NICER time request.
The requested NuSTAR exposure time per observation (i.e., a single visit to a target) is
constrained to a minimum of 20 ks and the time interval between successive visits must
be > 14 hours. Sources with fluxes >10–11 ergs s–1 cm–2 within 5° of the target may
cause increased nonuniform background gradients due to stray light. Users should
check observations for potential stray light contributions using the tools available at
http://nustarsoc.caltech.edu/NuSTAR_Public/NuSTAROperationSite/Home.php. If a
field is designated as heavily contaminated, proposers should submit a request for a
feasibility analysis to nustar-help@srl.caltech.edu at least two business days prior to the
proposal submission deadline.
NuSTAR observations of high count-rate targets (those with predicted instrument count
rate above 100 counts s–1 for both modules using 50% PSF extraction with no
deadtime) require special planning and increased downlink capacity. High count-rate
observations of duration >30 ks are operationally difficult and can be accepted only if
well motivated. High count-rate observations longer than 75 ks will be considered only if
the total requested time is distributed in multiple observations, each with exposure time
<75 ks and separated by more than 1 week.
Proposers should carefully review NuSTAR technical documentation available from the
NuSTAR websites: http://nustar.caltech.edu and
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nustar/nustar_prop.html.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 General Information
It is anticipated that limited funding will be available through this program element for
the support of General Observations (see Section 3 table). Only proposals with

D.11-5
Category A and B targets will be eligible for funding. "Fair share" award funding
considerations may include data analysis complexity and total awarded observing time.
NICER GO funding is open to individuals who are identified as Principal Investigators
and employed at U.S. institutions, including NICER science team members. Note that
GO proposals that would support those who already receive NICER science team
funding must clearly demonstrate that the proposed investigation is not redundant with
their science team responsibilities.
Grant budgets will be invited as Phase-2 proposals in response to selected Phase-1
Cycle 5 proposals. It is anticipated that up to 50 GO grants will be awarded through this
program. Proposals by non-U.S. PIs will not be eligible for funding. In addition, some
U.S. PI-led proposals may be allocated observing time, but not be invited to submit
grant budget requests. NASA does not anticipate awarding contracts in response to
proposals submitted to this program element, because it would not be appropriate for
the nature of the work solicited.
2.2 Proposal Submission and Evaluation
2.2.1 Submission of Proposals to the NICER GO Program
The NICER GO program uses a two-phase proposal process. A Phase-1 proposal shall
comprise the science/technical justification. Only proposers whose Phase-1 proposals
are selected will be invited to submit budget proposals in Phase 2. The Phase-2
proposals must include a budget narrative describing, in sufficient detail, how the
proposed funds will be used to achieve the goals outlined in the proposal. It is nominally
expected that the PI of the Phase-1 proposal will serve as the Phase-2 proposal PI;
however, for administrative purposes, an alternate individual from the Phase-1 PI’s
institution may serve as PI on the Phase-2 proposal. All proposal materials shall be
submitted electronically.
The Phase-1 peer review will be executed in a "dual-anonymous" fashion, where not
only are proposers unaware of the identity of review panel members, but the reviewers
do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams (see Section 2.2.2).
Proposers to the NICER GO Program must adhere to the following proposal submission
procedures:
• All Proposers must submit their Phase-1 proposals electronically through the
ARK/RPS website at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/;
• Target forms must be submitted through ARK/RPS;
• Due to the nature of prospective investigations within the NICER GO program, the
Scientific/Technical/Management section of proposals is limited to four pages,
instead of the default 15. The requirement for a table of contents in the body of the
proposal is waived.
• The Scientific/Technical/Management section must be uploaded to the ARK/RPS
website as a single PDF file.
• No supporting material (e.g., Curriculum Vitae, pending/current support) is required
or allowed other than what is specified in the supplemental documentation
concerning the dual-anonymous review procedure.

D.11-6
 • Proposers are reminded that Sections III(b and c) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation cover rules concerning foreign participation, as well as certain
restrictions concerning bilateral participation, collaboration, or coordination with
China or any Chinese-owned entity.
All proposal materials must be submitted electronically by 4:30 p.m. Eastern time on the
due date for this program in order to be included in the proposal review for this Cycle of
the NICER GO program.
LaTeX and MS Word templates are available for download at
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nicer/proposals/nicer_prop_guide.html#justification
to aid in the preparation of Phase-1 proposals. No supporting material (e.g., CV,
pending/current support) will be considered for Phase 1. Page limits include figures and
references. These instructions supersede any given in the ROSES NRA and/or the
NASA guidebook.
2.2.2 Specific Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Phase-1 Proposals
The overarching objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious
bias in the evaluation of the merit of a proposal. Under this system, not only are
proposers unaware of the identity of the members on the review panel, but the
reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal teams.
Proposers should consult the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document in the
"Other Documents" section on the NSPIRES page of this program element for
instructions on writing proposals appropriate for dual-anonymous peer review. The
instructions here and in that document supersede the default instructions given in the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. Proposers
will also be required to upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document, which is not anonymized. The "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document contains complete information on how to write this separate document.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit, without
initially taking into account the proposing team’s qualifications. As a final check, and
only after the scientific evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided
with the "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The panel will
validate the qualifications of the team in order to allow the reviewers to assess the team
capabilities required to execute a given proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key factors for PIs to keep in mind are:
• Proposals should eliminate language that identifies the proposers or institutions, as
discussed in the Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals.
• PIs are required to upload a one-page “Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized” PDF through ARK as a separate upload when submitting the science
justification. This document must not be anonymized.
• NASA understands that dual-anonymous peer review represents a major shift in
the evaluation of General Observer / General Investigator proposals, and as such
there may be occasional slips in writing anonymized proposals. However, NASA
reserves the right to return without review proposals that are particularly egregious

D.11-7
 in terms of the identification of the proposing team.
A summary of the key requirements for preparing anonymized Phase-1 proposals is
provided in the table below. Additional information may also be found on the web at:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review.
Item Requirement
Anonymization Phase-1 proposals are anonymized. Phase-2
(cost) proposals are not anonymized.
Submission Phase-1 proposals are submitted through
ARK/RPS. Phase-2 (cost) proposals are
submitted through NSPIRES.
References References should be in the [1], [2] format.
Work plan Include an anonymized one-paragraph work plan
in the main body of the Phase-1 proposal.
Proposal length No change.
Separate "Expertise and This document provides a list of all team
Resources - Not members, their roles, expertise, and contributions
Anonymized" document to the work. The document should also discuss
any specific resources that are key to completing
the proposed work. No more than 1 page in
length.
2.2.3 Evaluation of Proposals submitted to the NICER GO Program
Phase-1 proposals will be evaluated by a peer evaluation panel for Merit and Relevance
(see Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation), with the evaluation of merit
including:
• The suitability of using the NICER observatory and data products for the
proposed investigation;
• The degree to which the proposed observations place demands upon NICER
mission resources; and
• The degree to which the proposed observation capitalizes on the unique
capabilities of NICER.
2.2.4 Additional Proposal Constraints and Requirements
GO proposals for targets with existing or planned NICER observations must justify why
additional data are warranted. Proposers are strongly encouraged to familiarize
themselves with the content of the NICER data archive; the onus is on the proposer to
demonstrate that the proposed project does not significantly duplicate the goals of past
or current NICER science investigations.
Proposers who wish to acquire coordinated NuSTAR exposures with their proposed
NICER observations must demonstrate in the proposal the value of adding NuSTAR
data, and present a detailed feasibility study of the combined observations. Proposers
must check the appropriate box in the ARK/RPS submission form requesting
coordinated NuSTAR time.

D.11-8
 2.2.5 Submission and Evaluation of Phase-2 Proposals
Subject to the availability of funding, successful Phase-1 proposers will be contacted by
the NICER Program Officer and invited to submit a cost proposal as their application for
Phase 2. Upon notification of selection of a Phase-1 proposal, a proposer must respond
by following the instructions for submitting a Phase-2 proposal given in the selection
notification from the Phase-1 review. Phase-2 (cost) proposals must be submitted
through NSPIRES by an Authorized Organizational Representative of the proposing
institution according to the instructions in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. The
cost proposal will consist of a Budget Details section (maximum of two pages) and a
Narrative section (maximum of two pages) with a detailed justification of all proposed
items for funding.
NASA personnel will evaluate the Phase-2 cost proposals against the cost
reasonableness evaluation criterion.
Note that since the Phase-2 proposals will not be peer reviewed, the requirement to
redact the budget information (per Section IV(b)(iii) of the Summary of Solicitation) is
waived. All costs must be included in the proposal. Proposers should note that Phase-2
(cost) proposals should not be anonymized.
2.3 Supplemental Information [Amended May 20, 2022]
Further details concerning NICER, proposal requirements, and the submission process
can be found at the NICER website (https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nicer/). NICER
data are archived at the HEASARC (https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov) in the standard
(OGIP/HEASARC) high-energy FITS file formats. Supporting software, in the form of
mission-specific FTOOLS (the NICERDAS package within HEASoft), is available
through the HEASARC.
NuSTAR simulation tools and additional technical information may be found at
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/nustar/nustar_prop.html.
Technical information in support of proposals for Swift observations may be
found at https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/proposals/.
Technical information in support of proposals for TESS data may be found at
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/tess/proposing-investigations.html.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected total program budget for ~$1.5M. See Section 2.1.
new awards.
Number of new awards pending ~50. See Section 2.1.
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 2 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to
Option not available.
propose (NOI)
Due date for Phase-1 proposals 4:30 p.m. Eastern time on the date given in
Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES solicitation via
ARK/RPS, see Section 2.2.1.

D.11-9
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for Phase-1 proposals
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of Notice of
Intent to propose
Web site for submission of Phase-1 https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ark/rps/ Phase-1
proposal and required forms
Programmatic information may be
obtained from the NICER Program
Officer
Technical questions concerning this
program element may be directed
to the NICER General Observer
Program
No earlier than March 1, 2023.
4 pages. See Section 2.2.1 for details. See
Section 2.2.2 for guidelines for preparing
proposals for dual-anonymous reviews.
This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
For Phase 1 see Section 2.2.2; for Phase 2 see
Section 2.2.5.
For Phase 1 see Section 2.2.1; for Phase 2 see
Section 2.2.5 and NSPIRES Online Help
Electronic proposal submission is required in
PDF format; no hard copy is required or
permitted.
Option not available.
proposals may not be submitted via NSPIRES or
grants.gov.
Roopesh Ojha
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 527-2353
Email: Roopesh.Ojha@nasa.gov
Keith Gendreau, NICER PI
Code 662
Goddard Space Flight Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001
Telephone: (301) 286-6188
Email: Keith.C.Gendreau@nasa.gov
D.11-10
D.12 THEORETICAL AND COMPUTATIONAL ASTROPHYSICS NETWORKS
NOTICE: October 5, 2022. The Inclusion Plan language in Section 4
has been updated. This correction makes the Inclusion Plan language
uniform and consistent across Appendix D. Changes in Section 4 are
not tracked and the due dates are unchanged.
Amended August 3, 2022. This amendment adds exoplanet research
to this program element, resets the due dates, and clarifies the
existing scope (theoretical topics in any of the areas of astrophysics
included in the Astrophysics Theory Program). New NOIs are invited
by October 4, 2022 and proposals are now due November 4, 2022.
Amended May 5, 2022. This amendment releases the final text and due
dates for this program element, which had been listed as "TBD". NOIs
are requested by July 8, 2022 and proposals are due August 4, 2022.
Proposals are encouraged to incorporate and develop AI/ML tools to
address relevant theoretical topics in astrophysics.
This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan Program,
see Section 4. This Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival
ratings nor selection recommendations for this opportunity.
1. Scope of Program
The Astro2020 Decadal Survey, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics
for the 2020s, calls for continued cultivation of a strong theoretical astrophysics
program. The Theoretical and Computational Astrophysics Networks (TCAN) program
was established in response to the New Worlds, New Horizons report of the Astro2010
Decadal Survey, with the following goals:
• To support coordinated efforts in fundamental theory and computational
techniques in order to make groundbreaking advances in astrophysics;
• To strengthen theoretical and computational astrophysics in the U.S. by uniting
researchers in collaborative networks that cross institutional and geographical
divides; and,
• To advance the training of the future workforce of theoretical and computational
scientists.
The period of performance for TCAN investigations will be three years. The TCAN
program will support research networks with three or more nodes at distinct institutions.
A network is a combination of nodes and connections. A node is a group of researchers
at an existing institution, along with the local resources (e.g., computational,
educational, communications) that sustain them. A connection is a significant exchange
of expertise or capabilities between nodes (e.g., exchange of personnel, web-based
training, sharing of access to resources). Multiple connections between nodes, that
enable an integrated and focused collaborative effort, constitute a network.
Proposals submitted to the TCAN program must:

D.12-1
 • Be directly relevant to space astrophysics goals by facilitating the interpretation
of data from space astrophysics missions or by leading to predictions that can be
tested with space astrophysics observations;
• Address fundamental issues in theoretical and computational astrophysics, and
display a depth and breadth of concept qualitatively beyond those typical of the
Astrophysics Theory Program (ATP);
• Consist predominantly of theoretical astrophysics studies and/or the development
of theoretical astrophysics models and a significant computational component
that involves more than just incremental enhancement of existing codes.
TCAN proposals may address theoretical topics in any of the areas of astrophysics
included in the ATP.
[Added August 3, 2022] Theoretical investigations that would significantly
improve our understanding of exoplanets and exoplanet formation are also in
scope for this program element.
For the purposes of conducting the peer review, NASA requests that with any
new NOI or proposal the submitter please identify one (or more, if appropriate) of
the TCAN Categories below, in response to the program specific data question
the NSPIRES page for this program. For exoplanets, or any other relevant topic or
research area that is not listed, the selection should be left blank (don’t answer
the question). The primary use of these Topic Categories is to facilitate the
assignment of the proposal to an appropriate review panel. NASA reserves the
right to assign a proposal to a different category. Depending on the mix of
proposals received, review panels may not correspond exactly to these
categories:
1. Black Holes and AGN
2. Compact Objects
3. Cosmology
4. Galaxies
5. Galaxy Evolution
6. ISM & Star Formation
7. Large Scale Structure
8. Luminous Transients
9. Mergers & Gravitational Waves
10. Stars
Proposers should note, however, that the mix of proposals in a TCAN panel is likely to
cover a broader range of topics than a typical ATP panel, and should prepare their
proposals accordingly. TCAN proposals satisfying the requirements listed above may
involve development of data analysis methods for astrophysics missions and may
incidentally include actual data analysis as a test of the theory or the method.
Proposers are encouraged to:
• Consider using artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) for knowledge
discovery

D.12-2
 • Incorporate generation of large scale (multi-node) curated training datasets and
benchmarking to advance AI algorithms to address important Astrophysics
problems
• Adapt and build community around open-source AI tools for the Astrophysics
domain.
NASA encourages TCAN proposers to incorporate and develop AI/ML tools to address
relevant theoretical topics in astrophysics. Cross domain collaboration with AI/ML
experts and the like are encouraged. Cross domain collaboration spanning
various sectors (e.g., public, private, academic, etc.), and development of open-
source tools are also highly encouraged.
These aspects of proposals may be taken into account by the selection official as
programmatic factors, but their absence will not result in a weakness. [Added
August 3, 2022]
Proposals submitted to the TCAN program may not:
• Consist primarily of data reduction or data analysis (such proposals should be
directed to the mission-specific programs or the Astrophysics Data Analysis
Program (ADAP) described in Program Element D.2 in the ROSES-2022 NRA);
• Propose theoretical work pertaining to atomic and molecular astrophysics and
other topics directly related to Laboratory Astrophysics (these should be
proposed to the Astrophysics Research and Analysis (APRA) program element
described in Program Element D.3);
• Address theoretical topics that are predominantly unrelated to the needs of
NASA’s space astrophysics programs (such proposals should be directed to
other appropriate Federal agencies);
• Deal strictly or predominantly with Solar System objects or solar-terrestrial
interaction studies, including solar energetic particles (see Appendices B and C
for appropriate programs);
• Propose to develop new data analysis methods for future space missions (these
proposals should be submitted to the APRA program element described in
Program Element D.3);
• Primarily aim at studying new mission concepts; or
• Request support for organizing and/or hosting scientific meetings other than
network collaboration meetings.
Each proposed TCAN investigation must have a single, clear scientific focus, and be led
by a single Principal Investigator (PI), with a Co-I at each of the other nodes designated
as the organizational lead at that node. An individual may serve as PI or as an
organizational lead on no more than one proposal in response to this solicitation. One
proposal should be submitted for each proposed TCAN network; individual proposals for
constituent nodes are not required. Group proposals in which several researchers
submit an omnibus proposal consisting of related, but separate, investigations under a
designated PI, are not solicited for TCAN, and will be considered unresponsive to this
program element. For each funded network, one award will be made to the PI
organization, with the other node organizations funded through subawards from the PI
organization (except in cases of nodes located at Government laboratories). Networks

D.12-3
will be required to submit annual progress reports, and to participate in a
videoconference review with NASA Program Officers between years 2 and 3 (a pdf
version of the materials from this presentation will constitute the year-2 progress report).
2. Evaluation Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated by a science peer review panel with respect to Merit, Cost,
and Relevance, as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, and
consistent with Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and D.1
Astrophysics Research Overview (e.g., see Section 1.2 regarding the requirement for
Data Management Plans and Archiving). In addition to the standard factors of Merit
listed in the Guidebook, intrinsic merit shall also include the following factors:
• The appropriateness of the roles of the participating nodes and the effectiveness
of the connections between nodes in establishing the proposed project as a
network for realizing the goals of the proposed investigation;
• The functionality and effectiveness of management structures and procedures for
allocating responsibilities, reaching decisions, monitoring progress, correcting
errors, resolving conflicts, and assessing results;
• The practicality and efficacy of plans for evaluating the success of the network;
• The practicality and efficacy of plans for the support and maintenance of any
software to be developed and released to the community;
• The development of open-source AI tools for the Astrophysics community;
• The effectiveness of network activities in contributing to the training and
development of the future scientific workforce.
3. Availability of High-End Computational Resources
Those investigators whose research requires high-performance computing should refer
to Section I(e) ("NASA-provided High-End Computing Resources") of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation. This section describes the procedure that proposers to the
TCAN program must follow to apply for computing time on either of two NASA
computing facilities at the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Computational and
Information Sciences and Technology Office or at the Ames Research Center’s
Advanced Supercomputing Division. Because of the current high demand on NASA
computing facilities, TCAN proposers may instead request support for the purchase of
computing equipment or computing time from non-NASA providers of high-performance
computing systems and services. In this case, the budget narrative should include a
comparison between the cost of the proposed computing solution and that set out for
NASA systems at https://www.hec.nasa.gov/user/policies/sbus.html. TCAN proposers
requesting support for non-NASA computing may not also request NASA HEC
resources, and vice versa. All computing resource requests will be evaluated under the
cost reasonableness criterion by the science peer review panels (see Section V(a) of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation).
4. Inclusion Plan [Text replaced, October 5, 2022]
NASA is committed to a culture of diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility. Aligning
with NASA’s core value of inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate’s Science Plan
(see Strategy 4.1 in SMD Science Plan), SMD seeks to increase the diversity of thought

D.12-4
and backgrounds represented across the entire SMD portfolio through a more inclusive
and accessible environment.
To advance NASA’s core value and SMD’s plans, an Inclusion Plan, not to exceed two
pages (plus additional pages for references, as necessary) immediately following the
Data Management Plan, is required for all proposals.
Through the addition of Inclusion Plans, NASA seeks to improve equity in STEM by
asking proposers to consider ways to involve and empower historically underserved and
underrepresented groups in STEM.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to:
• identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for the
proposed investigation; 
• address ways in which the investigation team will attenuate or reduce these
barriers to create and sustain such an environment;
• discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will empower those from
historically underrepresented and underserved groups to be leaders and full
participants within an inclusionary environment where all voices are heard;
• discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will develop a diverse and
inclusive scientific workforce and clearly define roles and responsibilities for all
team members towards pursuing those goals; and
• consider the involvement of organizations and institutions that support and serve
under-represented groups including, but not limited to, Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and Other
Minority Universities.
A resource that some proposers may find useful in this regard is NASA’s Minority
Serving Institutions (MSI) Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
For the assessment of the Inclusion Plan, a peer review panel that may have a
combination of science discipline experts, social scientists, and/or experts on issues
surrounding diversity, inclusion, and equity, will be asked the following questions:
a. Does the Inclusion Plan provide adequate processes and goals for creating a positive
and inclusive working environment for the investigation team? Does the Inclusion
Plan include ways in which this positive and inclusive working environment will be
maintained? For instance, are the Plan’s metrics of success and associated
assessment plans adequate for gauging progress towards creating and sustaining
the inclusive environment? Does the Inclusion Plan demonstrate awareness of
systemic barriers and ideas for removing these to create inclusive working
environments?
b. Does the Inclusion Plan adequately describe the contribution of the proposed
investigation to the training and development of a diverse and inclusive team? Does
the Inclusion Plan provide an adequate plan for achieving the identified contribution?
Is the Plan likely to be successful in realizing the identified contribution? 
c. Do the efforts in the Inclusion Plan have clearly stated goals, actions to achieve those
goals, and metrics for measuring progress during the award period?

D.12-5
Please note that an Inclusion Plan is not the same as public engagement efforts nor is it
the same as NSF’s Broader Impacts statement. An Inclusion Plan that describes such
efforts alone will be considered inadequate for the purposes of this assessment. If
funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, it should be included and justified in
the budget. 
Note that while the assessment of the Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival
rating for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals, funding will be
released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory Inclusion Plan is approved by
the selection official. If funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, that request
for funding should be clearly identified and justified in the budget as a separate budget
element so it can be assessed. Reviewers and proposers will be invited to provide
comments and suggestions to improve the Inclusion Plan aspect of this research
program after the review is completed.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first
~$1M to $1.5M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
2-3
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of No earlier than 6 months after the proposal due
investigation date, but no later than April 1, 2023.
Page limit for the central Science- 15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-22 and the
Technical-Management section of NASA Guidebook for Proposers
proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
of this solicitation
General requirements for content See D.1 The Astrophysics Research Program
of proposals Overview and Table 1 of the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
submission of proposals the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted. See Section
IV of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.

D.12-6
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-TCAN
Sanaz Vahidinia
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 510-1982
Email: sanaz.vahidinia@nasa.gov
D.12-7
D.13 ASTROPHYSICS PIONEERS
NOTICE: Amended November 21, 2022. The text has been changed
significantly and changes are not shown via strike-through or bold.
Major changes include: 1) Proposals will be evaluated using the dual-
anonymous peer review process. See Section 2 and the associated
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document on the NSPIRES
page for this program element. 2) This program element is not
participating in the Inclusion Plan Pilot Program. 3) Letters of support
from the International Space Station (ISS) office, the Balloon Program
Office (BPO), or Commercial Lunar Payloads Services (CLPS) are no
longer required as part of the proposal; these instead are now required
with the submission of the CSR. NOI and proposal due dates are
unchanged.
Proposals requiring a NASA provided secondary launch opportunity
must provide a rideshare accommodation worksheet, See Section 4.5.
1. Scope of Program
This program element solicits proposals for "Pioneers", Astrophysics space and sub-
orbital science investigations that are greater in cost, scope and capability than what is
possible within the Astrophysics Research and Analysis (APRA) suborbital and
CubeSat program (D.3 of ROSES-2022) but are smaller in cost than what is possible
within the Astrophysics Explorers Mission of Opportunity (MO) program (e.g., PEA Q of
SALMON-3 for the 2021 opportunity). Investigations are solicited using platforms that
include CubeSats (including constellations), SmallSats, lunar surface hosted payloads
via the Commercial Lunar Payloads Services (CLPS) program, major balloon missions,
and International Space Station (ISS)-attached payloads. Technology development and
maturation within the proposed project is allowed, but the primary review criterion for
selection is the merit of the proposed science investigation.
All proposed investigations must be responsive to NASA's science goals in
Astrophysics, as described in the FY 21-22 Update to "Science 2020-2024: A Vision for
Scientific Excellence” and the 2022 NASA Strategic Plan, both of which may be found at
http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy/.
1.1 Background
Small satellites (SmallSats) have been suggested (in the Space Studies Board report
Achieving Science Goals with CubeSats) as a means to execute scientific missions at
far lower cost and complexity than typical space science missions; CubeSats are a type
of SmallSat. There are frequent launch opportunities for CubeSats in standard form
factors as secondary payloads. NASA has previously developed Astrophysics 6U and
12U CubeSat missions for low-Earth orbit operations through the APRA program.
Frequent launch opportunities are also available for larger CubeSats and other
SmallSats as secondary payloads using standard interfaces such as the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) and the ESPA
Grande.

D.13-1
NASA is also developing capabilities for long(er) duration balloon flights including flights
from mid-latitudes. Several test flights of zero-pressure balloons have recently been
carried out, including shared-risk science payloads. These capabilities offer the
opportunity for multi-month-long exposures including substantial night-time observing.
Additionally, NASA has determined that there may be payload opportunities for small,
suborbital-class astrophysics investigations that utilize the ISS. Proposals seeking use
of the ISS must take advantage of the Station’s unique capabilities. Available external
attach points include both zenith and nadir pointing locations.
Pioneers solicits investigations that utilize any of these ways to access space, and also
allows (cis)-Lunar payloads. Please see Section 3 for details.
2. Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Proposals
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review (DAPR) process in which not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the
reviewers, the reviewers are not told the identity of the proposers until after the
evaluation of the aspects of the proposal that don’t include the identity of the proposers
(see below). The objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to minimize bias in the
evaluation of the merit of a proposal.
Proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element
that explains how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-anonymous peer review
(DAPR). Those instructions detail the contents of the Expertise and Resources (E&R)
document that must be uploaded. Please note the total length of sections i. through v.
in the E&R document as described in that DAPR instructional document is limited to a
maximum of 20 pages, and that 10 pages may be sufficient. There is no limit for
sections vi, vii, and viii.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will be partly hidden for the peer reviewers. The Proposal Summary must
be anonymized but all other sections of the NSPIRES cover page should be completed
as normal and NSPIRES will hide the identifying information from the reviewers. The
proposal document must be anonymized, and proposers must upload a separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document, that contains all of the
personally (and organizational) identifying information.
Review panels will be instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals, without taking
into account the qualifications and capabilities of the proposers. After the evaluation of
the aspects of the proposal that don’t require the identity of the proposers has been
finalized for all proposals, panelists will be provided with the "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" documents for proposals that scored in the selectable range. The
panel will then assess the qualifications and capabilities of the team for these proposals
and provide comments to NASA.

D.13-2
 Table D.13-1 Summary of Key Requirements for Anonymized Proposals
Item Requirement
Science-Technical- The S/T/M section must be anonymized. Omit all names
Management (S/T/M) of team members and names of their organizations.
section of proposal
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
DMP DMP must be anonymized. See Section 4.4
Biographical Sketches Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document.
Table of Personnel and Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-
Work Effort I#2) in the main proposal document and in non-
anonymized fashion in the separate "Expertise and
Resources – Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Pending Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Support separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document.
Letters or Statements All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the
separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document
Redacted Budget and Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Facilities and Equipment The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only
in the separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document. However, the S/T/M Section of
the anonymized proposal should address the need for
and capabilities of facilities and equipment necessary for
the proposed research in an anonymized fashion. Any
unique/identifying descriptions of facilities and evidence of
access to or affiliation with facilities are to be included in
the separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document.
Separate "Expertise and Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
Resources - Not Attachment Type = "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document Anonymized". This document provides a list of all team
members, their roles, institutional affiliations, expertise,
and contributions to the work. The document should also
discuss any specific resources that are key to completing
the proposed work, as well as a summary of work effort.
Statements of Current and Pending Support must also be
included.

D.13-3
 Rideshare Not Anonymized Upload as a separate document in
accommodation NSPIRES. Choose Attachment Type = Rideshare
worksheet accommodation worksheet
Mandatory separately Full and complete with all costs requested from NASA,
uploaded "Total” budget including those at government laboratories. It is not
file. redacted or anonymized. Upload as attachment type
"Total budget" in NSPIRES. See Section IV(b)iii of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and/or The
ROSES FAQ on for more information on budget
redaction.
Optional High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as attachment
Computing request, type "Optional HEC request" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M
separately uploaded section in the main proposal must state that a HEC
request is included and must provide an outline of the
computing resources required in an anonymized fashion.

3. Categories of Proposals
3.1 SmallSats and CubeSats, including CubeSat Constellations
Proposers to this program element may propose CubeSats in form factors from 1U to
27U, CubeSat constellations, as well as ESPA or ESPA Grande mounted SmallSats
over a variety of form factors. It is expected that CubeSats larger than 12U will be
dispensed from an ESPA ring.
NASA will cover all launch and launch vehicle integration costs for spaceflight launches
via NASA’s rideshare program (please see the Rideshare Users Guide (RUG) available
under “Other Documents” on the NSPIRES page for this program element) including the
cost of an ESPA ring and integration of such, outside of the PI-managed cost cap of
$20M. The SMD rideshare program allows launch opportunities as secondary payloads
on ESPA or ESPA Grande secondary adapters launched with SMD missions on SMD-
purchased launch vehicles. NASA will also cover the costs of suborbital launches using
commercial suborbital reusable launch vehicle services through the Flight Opportunities
Program of NASA’s Science and Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) outside of the
PI-managed cost. If so desired, the PI may ‘bring their own ride’ using commercial
launch providers, including Venture Class launch vehicles, but the costs of doing so
must be included within the PI-managed cost.
Information on small satellite platform technologies is available through the NASA Small
Spacecraft Virtual Institute (S3VI) or the NASA Small Satellite Technology Program
(SSTP) websites. Basic information on CubeSat testing, mechanical, electrical, etc.
standards, can be found at these sites and in the "CubeSats 101" pdf file, available
under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element. Due to the
rapidly emerging commercial SmallSat market, it is expected that a suitable spacecraft
bus, or components for the bus, will be available from a variety of sources; examples
are available in the on line NASA State of the Art (SoA) report or the NASA SmallSat
Parts On Orbit Now (SPOON) database.
D.13-4
Proposers requiring a secondary launch opportunity must upload as a separate
appendix a completed version of the rideshare accommodation worksheet based on the
template that will be available under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this
program element. After the evaluation of proposals, but prior to the selection decision,
NASA will perform an accommodation study of selectable rideshare investigation
proposals to assess the extent to which the proposed investigation is compatible with
expected future rideshare opportunities. A proposed investigation compatible with
common launch opportunities (see Section 7.2) is more likely to be selected than one
with less common or less flexible accommodation and orbit requirements.
In case the requested launch configuration is not available immediately after the
payload is completed, proposals should indicate a minimum ‘keep alive’ funding level
that would allow the payload to be stored until the requested launch is available. Keep
alive funding will be limited to at most 2 years and shall not be included in the $20M PI-
managed cost cap. Excessive keep alive costs or a low likelihood of achieving the
required orbit via rideshare may be a reason for non-selection.
SmallSat projects may use the full range of up/down-link options available, including the
NASA Near Space Network (NSN), TDRSS, and/or commercial providers, but must
include the cost of these communications within the PI-managed cost. PIs are also
responsible for obtaining the proper licensing for communication channels chosen.
Orbital missions must meet orbital debris and space system protection requirements
and the project team is responsible for verifying compliance. Detailed requirements and
guidelines for limiting the generation of orbital debris and for implementing the U.S.
Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices are provided in NASA
Standard (NASA-STD) 8719.14C, Process for Limiting Orbital Debris, which
superseded NASA Safety Standard (NSS) 1740.14. Space Systems Protection
Standards can be found in NASA STD-1006. This compliance will be evaluated as part
of the Systems Requirements Review (see Section 4.3 below).
Note that the number of appendices that must be included will depend upon the nature
of the proposed investigation, see Section 4.5. These appendices do not count against
the science-management-technical section page limit. Proposers are urged to be
familiar with the rideshare documents that will be available under "Other Documents" on
the NSPIRES page for this program element.
For further information on NASA Launch Services Program and SMD rideshare, please
contact:
Norman Phelps
Launch Services Program Executive
Phone: 321-867-5147
Email: norman.l.phelps@nasa.gov
Alicia Mendoza-Hill
SMD rideshare lead
Phone: 321-432-4916
Email: Alicia.Mendoza-Hill@nasa.gov

D.13-5
3.2 Hosted Lunar Payloads
Pioneers also supports development of lunar surface hosted payloads for astrophysics
research. As for SmallSats, launch and integration costs will be covered by NASA
outside of the PI $20M cost cap. Those interested in lunar surface science should
review ROSES program element F.10 Payloads and Research Investigations on the
Surface of the Moon (PRISM) for instructions on Commercial Lunar Payload Services
(CLPS) payloads. A Feasibility Letter from the Point of Contact (POC) is no longer
required with the proposal, but will be required with the Concept Study Report (CSR,
see Section 5.3).
For more information on PRISM and/or CLPS, please contact the POC below:
Jay Jenkins
Exploration Science Strategy and Integration Office Program Executive
Email: jason.e.jenkins@nasa.gov
Development of cis-lunar science payloads is also supported within Pioneers, but
please note that Pioneers uses NASA rideshare for missions. These launches are
primarily to LEO, some to GEO, and less frequently to cis-lunar space. Selection of a
Pioneers project to cis-lunar space would be dependent on NASA’s assessment of the
likelihood of finding an appropriate launch.
3.3 Major Balloon Payloads
Proposers to this program element may propose major balloon payloads. NASA will
provide the appropriate balloon launch vehicle for major balloon missions via NASA’s
scientific balloon program outside of the PI-managed cost.
We note that due to the higher PI cost cap for Pioneers vs. APRA balloon payloads, a
higher level of PI provided detail in team Level of Effort (LOE), management, systems
engineering, integration and test, cost, and safety and mission assurance (SMA) is
expected for Pioneers proposals. For example, if heritage to previously flown missions
is invoked, then the costs of those heritage components, team LOE, management
techniques, SMA, etc. should be detailed. Cost and efforts are expected to be detailed
using the standard NASA spaceflight Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).
Investigators proposing Pioneers balloon payloads may contact the Balloon Program
Office (BPO) to obtain technical information related to BPO balloon capabilities,
services, and the latest planned campaign schedules. A BPO Feasibility Letter is no
longer required with the Pioneers balloon proposal, but will be required with the CSR
(see Section 5.3). All unique requirements that an investigation may have on the BPO
must be listed in the BPO feasibility Letter. Payloads for remote balloon campaigns,
e.g., McMurdo, Antarctica, or Wanaka, New Zealand, are required to have a CONUS
test flight prior to deployment to the remote campaign. Alternatively, proposers can
provide a test plan for a relevant thermal-vacuum test of the complete payload. The
BPO concurrence on an environmental test must be included in the Feasibility Letter.
The cost for environmental tests is the responsibility of the proposer within the PI-
managed cost.

D.13-6
Information on the capabilities of current available balloon vehicles is available at
http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code820/ and at http://www.csbf.nasa.gov/balloons.html.
Proposers are encouraged to consider these capabilities in designing their
investigations, but the BPO has the final authority in the choice of which vehicles to be
used. The current funded mission model of the BPO supports two U.S. balloon
campaigns and two non-U.S. balloon campaigns per year. Projects may propose for
multiple flights within the maximum 5-year duration of a Pioneers project.
In case the requested launch configuration is not available immediately after the
payload is completed, proposals should indicate a minimum ‘keep alive’ funding level
that would allow the payload to be stored until the requested launch is available. Keep
alive funding will be limited to at most 2 years and shall not be included in the $20M PI-
managed cost cap. Excessive keep alive costs may be a reason for non-selection.
Proposers needing investigation unique engineering, flight support systems, and/or
technical support services from NASA, such as the Wallops Arc-Second Pointing
System (WASP), should contact the BPO directly for an estimate of the Government
Furnished Equipment (GFE) cost of the desired support.
Details on NASA's scientific balloon program may be found in Section VIII(b)(ii) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
Questions concerning balloons may be addressed to:
Debora Fairbrother
Balloon Program Office
Code 820
GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Wallops Island, VA 23337
Telephone: (757) 824-1717
Email: debora.a.fairbrother@nasa.gov
3.4 International Space Station Attached Payloads
Proposers to this program element may propose payloads for the ISS. Information on
opportunities and constraints for ISS attached payloads may be found at
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/research_information.html. NASA
will provide launch services to the ISS for ISS-attached payloads via NASA’s
Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program, outside of the PI-managed cost.
Details on ISS-attached experiments may be found in the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation, Section VIIII(v). Pay particular attention to the additional requirements for
proposals for the ISS that are described in that section. Note that for Pioneers
proposals, a letter of feasibility from the ISS Research Integration Office is no longer
required, but will be required with the CSR (see Section 5.3). Note that the issuance of
the ISS letter of feasibility can take several weeks; therefore, proposers are urged to
contact the ISS Research Integration Office as early as possible for such a request.

D.13-7
For further information, please see the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, Section
VI(c)(v). For ISS Program accommodation support please contact both of these points
of contact from the ISS Program’s Research Office:
Name email Telephone
Steve Huning Steven.W.Huning@nasa.gov (281) 244-8043
ISS Research Helpline jsc-iss-research-helpline@nasa.gov (281) 244-6187

4. Proposal Requirements
4.1 Mandatory Notices of Intent
To facilitate the early recruitment of qualified, diverse, and un-conflicted review panel
members, a Notice of Intent (NOI) is required for all submissions to this program
element. Proposals that are not preceded by an NOI may be returned without review.
Submission of an NOI does not obligate the proposer to submit a full proposal later.
NOIs are not dual-anonymous, but list the names and affiliations of all team members.
After NOI submission, the initially listed PI may request to reassign the PI role only to
listed Co-Is. To make changes in the proposal team between submission of the NOI and
the proposal, the PI must inform the NASA point of contact identified in the summary
table of key information and cc sara@nasa.gov at least three weeks in advance of the
proposal due date. Addition of funded investigators within three weeks of the proposal
deadline will require explicit permission from the NASA point of contact.
4.2 General Requirements
Investigations must be PI-led and responsive to the NASA science goals in
Astrophysics, as described in “Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence -
FY 21-22 Update” and the NASA 2022 Strategic Plan available at
http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy. All proposed investigations must be
more capable than the investigations that are solicited within the Astrophysics Research
and Analysis (APRA) program (D.3 of ROSES-2022). Projects must adhere to the
requirements for NASA Research and Technology Projects as specified in NPR 7120.8,
but additional requirements and reviews, as outlined herein, are also expected.
PI-managed cost (from initiation to data archiving) allowed under this program are
limited to $20M in real year dollars over five years including PI managed reserves but
not including NASA-provided launch. Pioneers takes advantage of the SMD rideshare
program; therefore, NASA will provide these launch services outside of the PI-managed
cost for all categories of missions. Suborbital launches using commercial suborbital
reusable launch vehicle services through the Flight Opportunities Program of NASA’s
Science and Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) are also allowed and costs are
outside of the PI-managed cost. In addition, the PI may ‘bring their own ride’ and elect
to use commercial launch providers, including Venture Class launch vehicles, but the
costs of doing so must be included within the PI-managed cost.
Awards are expected to cover all aspects of the proposed investigation, typically
including payload development and construction, instrument integration and calibration,

D.13-8
support for the team through launch, flight operations, publication of results, and data
collection/analysis/dissemination/archiving. The PI institution is expected to fund
participating Co-Investigators via subawards, except where the Co-I is at a Government
laboratory, including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory; in such a case NASA will fund the
Co-Investigator organization directly.
Pioneers is designed to incentivize quick projects. Maximum duration of awards is five
years. Proposers are encouraged to be flight ready within three to four years of the
beginning of funding, and all projects must complete their prime mission within five
years of the beginning of funding. It is anticipated that spacecraft bus and launch
availability will allow some SmallSat programs to be flight ready more rapidly. The prime
mission includes completion of the science objectives proposed, archiving of data and
publication of results.
Projects may request a waiver from the requirement to finish the prime mission within 5
years by giving sufficient justification within the proposal. Funding for extended mission
operations may be requested via a subsequent proposal to this program.
4.3 Proposal Content Requirements
The Scientific/Technical/Management section of Pioneers proposals may be at most 30
pages long and should otherwise follow the form outlined in Table 1 of ROSES-2022
and the 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers, except for the fact that it must be
anonymized consistent with the instructions in Section 2 and the associated "Guidelines
for Anonymous Proposals" document on the NSPIRES page for this program element. If
they differ, this program element takes precedence over the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation (SoS) and the ROSES SoS takes precedence over the Guidebook. One
example of this is that the peer reviewed proposal may not include salary, fringe or
overhead. For more information about redaction of salaries, see Section IV(b)iii of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
The proposal shall clearly define its science goals and objectives, shall demonstrate
how the science objectives map into high-level science requirements, and shall show
how the science requirements subsequently map into the measurement and instrument
performance requirements and, as relevant, into the platform performance
requirements. The proposal shall include a Science Traceability Matrix (STM) per the
example in the Other Documents section of this program element’s webpage. Both a
baseline and threshold mission shall be specified. Each proposal shall clearly state the
requirements for a successful science program, for the performance of the instrument,
for the performance of the platform, the prime mission lifetime for operations, and the
range of satellite orbits or balloon flights acceptable or required for deployment.
Proposals shall clearly state the desired and acceptable orbits and operational
constraints (e.g., duty cycle or observational cadence) and describe the relative
scientific merits of each possible orbit (per the rideshare accommodation worksheet on
the Other Documents section of this program element’s webpage, if applicable). Except
for the redaction of salary, fringe and overhead, the proposal shall include a preliminary
cost estimate for the entire (up to 5 year) project, either bottoms up or parametric, in
sufficient detail to convince the reviewing team that the cost estimate is reasonable. Full
D.13-9
costs are included in the separately uploaded Total budget file that is not seen by peer
reviewers. The budget section shall utilize the standard NASA spaceflight Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS) system. We note that given that Pioneers projects are not
standard NASA spaceflight programs, some of the items in the standard WBS may not
be applicable or may be at lower cost than typical for spaceflight programs (for example,
SM&A). The cost estimate shall include sufficient reserves to ensure a probability of
success on budget commensurate with sub-orbital class projects and shall identify the
largest risks to the cost estimate. While reserves vary with project maturity and within
the WBS elements, ~20% reserves are not uncommon. The proposal may include a
flight heritage section if appropriate.
Proposals shall designate all Co-Investigators (Co-Is), describe the role of each Co-I in
the development of the investigation, and justify the necessary nature of the role. The
proposal shall identify the Project Manager, which given the size of Pioneers project is
likely to be somebody other than the PI, but it is allowed that the PI takes on this role.
Reminder: the peer-reviewed proposal must be anonymized for dual-anonymous peer
review, see section 2. While excessively large teams of Co-Investigators and
Collaborators are discouraged, it is expected that Pioneers teams may be larger than
APRA sub-orbital teams but smaller than Explorer teams. Non-U.S. based researchers
are allowed as team members on a non-exchange of funds basis, please see the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation, Section IV(d) and the SARA FAQ on this topic for
details.
The proposal shall outline what trades will be studied during the initial formulation phase
leading to the CSR and subsequent combined Systems Requirements Review / Mission
Definition Review. In order to assist with these trades, the team may work with any of
the NASA design offices identified below. Mission design will be a critical part of this
formulation phase, during which the team will make trades, explore feasibility, and refine
the mission concept. Proposals should include an anonymized list describing team
members who will conduct mission design (e.g., “we will bring two engineers with 10
year’s experience designing cubesats that have successfully flown”) and/or provide a
statement that arrangements have been made to partner with an appropriate NASA
mission design team.
Since some science teams may lack access to the necessary mission design capability,
NASA field centers can provide study teams access to mission design assistance if
needed. It is up to the proposing team to engage one of the field-center contacts below
to determine availability to support the team and to request the cost associated with the
support required. The negotiated cost is to be included in the proposal as a separate
line item in Section F ("Other Direct Costs") of the budget pages, line 8 or 9, labeled
with the name of the center facility, e.g., Ames Research Center - Mission Design
Center". These funds will be sent directly to the center and proposers may not charge
overhead on this portion of the award. Note that participation by a design center does
not necessarily mean that the NASA center must continue support once this design
work is complete; it is up to the PI teams to work out what support is needed to
successfully bring the mission to completion.

D.13-10
Ames Research Center - Mission Design Center
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/engineering/divisions/spaceflight/mission-design-
center-landing
Sally Cahill, sally.a.cahill@nasa.gov, 650-604-6571.
Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops Flight Facility – Mission Planning Lab
https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/mpl/index.html
Benjamin Cervantes, benjamin.w.cervantes@nasa.gov, 757-824-1526.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Innovation Foundry and Team Xc
http://jplfoundry.jpl.nasa.gov/
https://jplteamx.jpl.nasa.gov/
Kelly Case, kelley.e.case@jpl.nasa.gov, 818-354-5870.
Marshall Space Flight Center - Advanced Concepts Office
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/advancedconcepts.html
Rachel McCauley rachel.j.mccauley@nasa.gov, 256-975-5400.
4.4 Data Management and Archiving Requirements
All proposals must include a data management plan (DMP). The sufficiency of the data
management plan will be evaluated as part of the proposal’s intrinsic merit and will have
a bearing on whether or not the proposal is selected. The DMP must be placed in a 2-
page maximum section in the proposal PDF immediately following the references and
citations for the Scientific/Technical/ Management (S/T/M) portion of the proposal and
does not count against the page limit for the S/T/M Section. The DMP should outline the
"what, where, when, and who" for the data and software that will be created by the
investigation in adequate detail as described in Section 1.2 of D.1 the Astrophysics
Research Program Overview.
Software, whether a stand-alone program, an enhancement to existing code, or a
module that interfaces with existing codes, created as part of a ROSES award, should
be made publicly available when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when there is
scientific utility in doing so. Any additional cost for archiving should be covered in the
normal budget justification section of the proposal and simply referred to in the DMP.
For further details, explanations, and some DMP examples, please
see: https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/dmp-faq-roses/
The investigation team shall make mission data fully available to the public through a
NASA-approved astrophysics data archive: High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive
Research Center (HEASARC), Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST), or
Infrared Science Archive (IRSA), in readily usable form, in the minimum time necessary,
but, barring exceptional circumstances, by the end of the prime mission. The PI shall be
responsible for collecting the scientific, engineering, and ancillary information necessary
to validate and calibrate the data prior to delivery to the archive.
Archival data products should include low-level (raw) data, high-level (processed) data,
and derived data products such as maps, ancillary data, calibration data (ground and in-
flight, and intercalibration as needed), documentation, related software, and/or other
tools or parameters that are necessary to interpret the data. Data which is required to

D.13-11
carry out the science objectives but is obtained by other facilities must be included in
the archive. The PI shall be responsible for generating data products that are
documented, validated, and calibrated in physical units that are usable by the scientific
community at large.
For exceptionally large and/or complex data sets (for example, all triggers in a particle
astrophysics mission or CMB polarization maps) it may be allowable to archive only
higher-level products or to initially archive the raw data within six months of completion
of the prime mission. Such an exception must be justified within the data management
plan and plans for archiving the high-level data must also be described.
4.5 Proposal Appendix Requirements
In addition to the main peer reviewed anonymized proposal (see Section 2) there are up
to four other appendices that may be required. None of these appendices should be
anonymized:
1. "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document that is required for all
proposals, see Table D.13-1 in Section 2.
2. Total Budget file seen only by NASA that includes all budget information,
including salary, fringe and overhead, that is required for all proposals. See
Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and/or The ROSES
FAQ on for more information on budget redaction.
3. Rideshare Accommodation Worksheet. Proposals requiring a NASA provided
secondary launch opportunity for a CubeSat or SmallSat project must provide a
filled out rideshare accommodation worksheet. See Table D.13-1 in Section 2.
This worksheet is posted under Other Documents on the NSPIRES page for this
program element.
4. Optional HEC request form, see Table D.13-1 in Section 2.
5. Pioneers Management Process
Selected projects will be managed as research projects, not space flight projects. As
such the standard NASA mission classification scheme of class A, B, C, D does not
apply to Pioneers project. Management requirements for research projects are fully
documented in NASA Procedural Requirements document NPR7120.8A, but key items
are listed below.
5.1 Management Oversight
While selected projects will be managed as research projects, they will be subject to
additional oversight beyond what is typical of APRA suborbital-class projects. That
oversight will include monthly reporting. The NASA Special Projects and Small Satellite
Project Office (S3PO https://smallsat.wff.nasa.gov/ see the ‘contact’ tab) at Wallops
Flight Facility (WFF) will act as a program office and provide high level oversight of
Pioneers projects, including guidance at monthly reporting, and possible engineering
support if requested by the project PI. The S3PO will provide this oversight for all
projects including balloons, ISS attached payloads, and suborbital programs, acting as
a liaison between the project and other NASA program offices (for example, the BPO).

D.13-12
5.2 Program and Project Management
NASA considers Pioneers investigations to be research and technology projects, not
space flight projects, just like all other ROSES investigations. Programmatic oversight
for Pioneers projects will be provided by the S3PO at WFF, while the PI and PM provide
project management. Issuance of an award is the beginning of formulation. At the end
of each project year, the PI will submit an annual report, with the final report serving to
document project closeout.
5.3 Gate Reviews
At a schedule to be specified in the proposal, Pioneers projects are required to deliver
to NASA a Concept Study Report (CSR) and the materials needed to perform a
combined Systems Requirements Review (SRR) and Mission Definition Review (MDR).
Note that major equipment purchases and/or major sub-contract initiation are not
allowed prior to passing the SRR/MDR gate review. Given that Pioneers is intended to
incentivize rapid projects, it is expected that this gate review will be held before the end
of the first year.
The CSR shall be limited to 50 pages and shall address the weaknesses (if any)
identified in the proposal, describe the results of any trade studies performed after
selection, describe any changes to the budget, and provide updated budget information
in the format specified in the ‘Uniform Cost Analysis Template for CSR’ document in the
Other Documents section of the solicitation. Additional guidance on the CSR will be
provided to selected projects.
The materials needed for the SRR/MDR shall include a Project Plan, comprising an
agreement between the PI and NASA on implementation approach, resources, cost,
reviews, schedule, and other plans. Gate reviews (as listed below) will be conducted by
the S3PO per the draft schedule contained in the SRR/MDR input. Additional guidance
on the SRR/MDR will be provided to selected projects.
Following each gate review, a milestone review will be held by the Astrophysics
Division, NASA HQ. Decision Authority for these milestone reviews is the Director,
Astrophysics Division, NASA HQ. The first gate review is the combined Systems
SRR/MDR, which must be passed in order to proceed from the formulation stage into
implementation. Subsequent gate reviews will include a Preliminary Design Review
(PDR) and/or Critical Design Review (CDR), and Flight Readiness Review (FRR) per
the schedule agreed to in the Project Plan.
5.4 Cost and Continuation Assessment
Should a project be over budget or behind schedule at any Gate Review, a Cost and
Continuation Assessment will be performed to determine whether the project should
continue and, if continuation is approved, how the project can increase its probability of
success within its approved cost and schedule.
6. Systems Requirements Review/Mission Definition Review input
The planned up-to-five-year duration of the award shall include an initial formulation
phase during which science and performance trades shall be made in order to optimize
D.13-13
the mission design. The formulation phase includes delivery of the CSR, and ends at
the SRR/MDR. Two months before the end of this phase the project must deliver
sufficient input to NASA in order to perform a combined Systems Requirements
Review/Mission Definition Review (SRR/MDR), which will be conducted by NASA in
order to determine if continuation of the program into development is warranted.
The SRR/MDR input shall include a Project Plan, comprising an agreement on
implementation approach, resources, cost, reviews, schedule, and other plans, in order
to be approved to proceed from the formulation phase to implementation phase. This
should include sufficient information to allow a combined SRR/MDR to be conducted.
This input shall identify what changes in performance and implementation were made
from the original proposal, i.e., what trades have been made. For Pioneers projects
requiring a secondary launch, an updated launch accommodation worksheet must be
included in the deliverables. A description of the suggested inputs needed for the
SRR/MDR will be provided to selected projects.
This input must include sufficient information for NASA to perform a uniform cost
analysis on all submissions. This may include a Master Equipment List (MEL) in
abbreviated form.
Should review of the SRR/MDR reveal significant challenges (in, for example, cost,
schedule or technology maturity), the project may be terminated or continued with a
revised baseline.
7. Programmatic Information
7.1 Award Duration and Type
Awards will be for a maximum duration of 5 years and extramural awards will be in the
form of Cooperative Agreements. Deliverables as outlined in this document will be
specified in the award documentation.
7.1.1 Description of NASA Contribution
It is anticipated that most awards to non-governmental organizations will be in the form
of cooperative agreements (as opposed to grants) since SMD will be substantially
involved after selection and intends to maintain an essential degree of oversight of the
selected project(s) throughout the project lifecycle (e.g., see Section 4.1). Information
on each suborbital-class platform provided as Government furnished equipment (GFE)
and/or Government services by NASA is shown in Sections 3.1-3.3 and 7.2. Proposers
should contact the referenced suborbital-class platform point of contact when
developing their proposals to best understand the capabilities and limitations of each
platform, their associated technical and integration services, how to schedule a
flight/launch, and to ensure their proposed investigations are feasible from a vehicle
perspective.
The Pioneers program's planning budget can accommodate two or more selection(s)
within this solicitation's cost cap with a typical (combined) funding profile over a nominal
five-year development period including launch. Proposers should request a funding
profile that is appropriate for their investigation. However, NASA cannot guarantee that

D.13-14
every proposed funding profile can be accommodated within the Pioneers program
budget. The inability of NASA to accommodate the requested funding profile may be a
reason for non-selection of a proposal. Final funding profiles for all selected
investigations will be negotiated between the Pioneers program and the selected
investigation teams.
7.2 Launch for Secondary Payloads (CubeSats and SmallSats)
All launch costs and spacecraft integration costs for secondary payloads will be covered
by NASA and managed by NASA’s Launch Services Program. Proposers should plan
that launch will be via the NASA rideshare program for secondary payloads launched on
an ESPA ring.
Payloads are expected to adhere to ESPA or ESPA-grande standards, or containerized
CubeSat standards for smaller spacecraft. Please see the information that will appear
under Other Documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element for details.
Because of the availability of frequent launch opportunities, it is anticipated that the
majority of the selections will be for investigations that would be delivered to moderately
inclined low Earth orbit (LEO) at 400km-600km, geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO),
or Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO); other orbits (including low inclination LEO and cis-
lunar) are allowed provided the case is made that launch opportunities as a secondary
payload with an SMD primary mission could reasonably be expected. More details on
the NASA rideshare program will be in the Rideshare Users Guide (RUG) that will be
available under Other Documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element. See
also the SmallSat Virtual Institute (S3VI) Launch Portal for information on currently
planned SMD launches which may have the capacity for rideshare payloads.
7.3 Cross-Waivers of Liability
Awards made in response to proposals to this program element will include the Cross-
Waiver of Liability cited in Section 5.10.1 (and given in full in Appendix E) of the NASA
Grant and Cooperative Agreement Manual: 5.a Cross-Waiver of Liability for
International Space Station Activities and 5.b Cross-Waiver of Liability for Science or
Space Exploration Activities Unrelated to the International Space Station. Cross-waivers
will require the recipient to extend the correct cross-waiver terms and conditions to their
subcontractors at any tier and related entities, ensuring those subcontractors and
related entities also waive all claims against any entity or person defined in the provision
for damages arising out of Protected Space Operations. This cross-waiver is intended to
be broadly construed, and NASA extends it to its related entities as set forth in the
provision. The language in the cross waiver is required by the international agreements
NASA has with its international partners for the exploration of space. Note that this
applies only to non-NASA lead projects.
8. Evaluation Considerations and Criteria
8.1 Evaluation Criteria
All proposals will be evaluated for Intrinsic Merit, Cost, and Relevance, as defined in
Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and consistent with Section V(a) of

D.13-15
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. While scientific merit is the primary factor in the
Intrinsic Merit evaluation criterion, Pioneers projects also offer the opportunity for
advancing the technology readiness levels of future space flight detectors and
supporting technologies and preparing future leaders of NASA space flight missions,
such as early-career researchers and students. For Pioneers proposals, specific factors
that will be considered when evaluating a proposal’s intrinsic merit are primarily the
scientific merit and secondarily the degree to which it advances the technology
readiness level of a detector or supporting technology (see Section 8.3), and the degree
to which it advances the readiness of early-career researchers or graduate students to
assume leadership roles on future NASA space flight missions (see Section 8.2).
Science merit will form ~50% of the evaluation, technical feasibility and, if applicable,
merit and feasibility of technology development ~25%, and advancing early career
researchers ~25%.
8.2 Early Career Team Members
Specific factors that will be considered when evaluating a proposal’s intrinsic merit
include the degree to which it advances the readiness of early-career researchers
(ECRs) or students to assume roles in advancing NASA’s strategic objectives. Brief
anonymized details of the educational goals and training of the participants should be
included in the main Science/Technical/Management section of the anonymized
proposal. The participation of graduate and undergraduate students, postdocs, and
other early career team members is strongly encouraged, especially if the project can
be concluded within the nominal tenure of student training or postdoctoral
appointments. NASA has no specific requirements for what must be included in the
ECR plan, but it may include mentoring of ECRs by personnel with relevant expertise, it
may identify metrics to measure success, and it may develop diversity of new skills in
the ECRs.
This participation is not limited to scientific staff but extends to all staff needed to carry
out the proposed project. Early Career is defined as less than 10 years since receipt of
the most advanced degree. It is allowed that the entire team be early career, but the mix
of personnel, regardless of career stage, should be appropriate to carry out the
proposed work. Details about individuals that cannot be anonymized may be included in
the "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
8.3 Technology Development
While the emphasis in Pioneers is on astrophysics science investigations, the
development of Pioneers projects does enable technology development. When
proposing to carry out such development, it is recommended that the proposal should
demonstrate that Technology Readiness Level TRL 6 on all systems can be achieved
by PDR and that all technologies will be flight ready by the time of delivery of the
integrated mission for launch. List all key technologies and the current state of TRL at
the time of proposal. A properly formulated technology development plan is consistent
with the goals of Pioneers, and it could be a strength of a proposal.

D.13-16
8.4 Request for Reviewer Names
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of up to
five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is or stand to benefit financially from the selection (or
otherwise) of the proposal. This information should be included in the "program specific
data question" in the Notice of Intent or emailed to the relevant Program Officer listed
below.
9. Summary of Key Information
Maximum funding per investigation $20M PI cost, over life cycle (real year dollars).
Expected maximum annual program $5M. Please note this is guidance, not a hard
budget for new awards limit. The formulation phase is not expected to
include large hardware procurement or sub-
contracts.
Number of new awards pending NASA intends to select 1 to 3 proposals, and
sufficient meritorious proposals pending sufficient budget, to continue each of
those that pass the gate into implementation.
Maximum duration of awards 5 years
Due date for mandatory NOI to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
propose
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning start date No earlier than August 1, 2023
Launch readiness date No later than five years from the project start
(when initial funding starts). Please note
additional requirements within text, for example,
Section 5.2
Page limit for the central Science- 30 pages
Management-Technical section of
proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See D.1 The Astrophysics Research Program
proposals Overview and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.

D.13-17
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES online help the 2022 NASA
submission of proposals Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b) of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
Web site for submission of electronic http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
proposals via NSPIRES at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-
9376)
Web site for submission of electronic https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
proposals via Grants.gov support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package NNH22ZDA001N-PIONEERS
from Grants.gov
Points of contact, both of whom share Main Point of Contact:
the following postal address: Michael Garcia
Telephone: (202) 320-6341
Astrophysics Division Email: michael.r.garcia@nasa.gov
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001 POC concerning Data Archive issues:
Hashima Hasan
Telephone: (202) 358-0692
Email: hashima.hasan@nasa.gov

D.13-18
D.14 NANCY GRACE ROMAN SPACE TELESCOPE RESEARCH AND SUPPORT PARTICIPATION
OPPORTUNITIES
NOTICE: Amended December 16, 2022. This amendment releases the
final text for this program element, which had previously been
released as draft for community comment. Notices of Intent are
requested by January 20, 2023, and the proposal due date is March 21,
2023. A Frequently Asked Questions document will be posted under
other documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
Please send any questions regarding this final text to
Dominic.Benford@nasa.gov, with the subject line “D.14 Roman
Clarification.”
This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan Program;
see Section 4.6. This Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival
ratings nor of selection recommendations for this opportunity.
Each proposal will fall into one of three categories: (Wide Field
Science, described in Section 2.2; Project Infrastructure Teams,
described in Section 2.3; Coronagraph Community Participation
Program, described in Section 2.4). Information about the Roman
mission relating to proposals, and with which all proposers should be
familiar, is in Section 3. Specific guidelines on proposal submission
are in Section 4. Forward guidance to set expectations for the PIs of
selected proposals are provided in Section 5.
Since the release of the draft solicitation and in response to the many
comments and questions received, many changes have been made to
this final text that would be too numerous to describe in detail. The
substance of the solicitation is unchanged. Several sections have
been significantly adjusted, however:
• A brief description of the purpose of this opportunity has been
inserted as the beginning of Section 1.
• Additional topical areas were added to the Coronagraph Community
Participation Program in Section 2.4.2.
• The Document Library section (3.2) is more detailed, and the online
document library itself is updated; some material on the notional
Roman observing program from Section 3.3 has been relocated
there.
• Section 3.9 on NASA-provided computing resources has been
augmented.
• Section 4 has been reordered for chronological clarity.
• Section 4.4 has been added to clarify expectations on the description
of investigation management.
• Section 4.6 on the Inclusion Plan has been rewritten.

D.14-1
 Table of Contents
1 Scope of Program .................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Overview of this Opportunity .......................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Overview of the Roman Mission .................................................................................................... 4
2 Details of This Opportunity ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Categories of Proposal ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Wide Field Science .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Content of WFS proposals ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Optional Enhancement for Student Research ........................................................................ 8
2.2.3 Responsibilities of Wide Field Science Teams ...................................................................... 8
2.2.4 Structure of Wide Field Science Proposals ............................................................................ 8
2.3 Project Infrastructure Teams .......................................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Responsibilities of Project Infrastructure Teams .................................................................... 9
2.3.1.1 Infrastructure Development ............................................................................................. 9
2.3.1.2 Supporting Community Science Collaborations ............................................................. 9
2.3.1.3 Supporting the Roman Project and Science Centers .................................................. 10
2.3.2 Unique Requirements for Project Infrastructure Team Proposals ...................................... 11
2.4 Coronagraph Community Participation Program ........................................................................ 11
2.4.1 Community Participation Program Team Responsibilities .................................................. 11
2.4.2 Technology Demonstration Topics for Community Participation ........................................ 12
2.4.3 Unique Requirements for Community Participation Program Proposals ........................... 14
2.5 Specific Considerations and Exclusions ...................................................................................... 14
3 Programmatic Information..................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Eligibility to Propose ...................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Document Library .......................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Roman Observing Program .......................................................................................................... 15
3.4 Investigations related to Mission Science Objectives ................................................................ 16
3.5 Mission Technology Objectives and Coronagraph Threshold Technology Requirement ....... 17
3.6 Timeline for the Roman Mission................................................................................................... 18
3.7 Budget for Planning ....................................................................................................................... 18
3.8 International Team Members ....................................................................................................... 19
3.9 Availability of NASA-Provided Computational Resources ......................................................... 19
3.10 Implementation Science Working Group ..................................................................................... 21
4 Proposal Content ................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Notice of Intent ............................................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Request for Reviewer Names ...................................................................................................... 21
4.3 Clarification of Proposal Content.................................................................................................. 22
4.4 Management Portion of Science-Technical-Management Section ........................................... 23
4.5 Data Management Plan ................................................................................................................ 23
4.6 Inclusion Plan................................................................................................................................. 24
4.7 Non-Anonymous Proposal Review .............................................................................................. 25
5 Roman Research Management Process ............................................................................................. 26
5.1 Wide Field Science Investigation Management .......................................................................... 26
5.2 Project Infrastructure Team Management ................................................................................... 26
5.3 Community Participation Program Management ........................................................................ 27
6 Summary of Key Information ................................................................................................................ 27

D.14-2
1 Scope of Program
This program element solicits proposals to work on preparation for the operational
phase of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, using one of three categories
depending on the type of work being proposed. These are:
● Wide Field Science (WFS)
○ Supports investigations that prepare for and/or enhance the science return of
Roman that can be addressed with its Wide Field Instrument (WFI)
○ Two different scales of project: Regular (two-year term, up to $150K/year) and
Large (four-year term, ≲$500K/year)
○ Expect to award up to 20 WFS proposals, subject to budgetary limits and
sufficient meritorious proposals
○ Anticipate offering this opportunity category again in ROSES-24
● WFI Project Infrastructure Teams (PIT)
○ Sustained funding for teams to work in partnership with the Science Centers to
develop scientific infrastructure needed to enable the community to pursue
Roman’s ambitious science goals in cosmology and exoplanet demographics
○ Additional science areas that require extensive and sustained infrastructure
development will also be considered
○ Selected investigations will have five-year terms; available funding can support
$500K-$2000K/year awards
○ Expect to award between two and five proposals funded via cooperative
agreements, subject to budgetary limits and sufficient meritorious proposals.
○ Not anticipated to be offered again.
● Coronagraph Community Participation Program (CPP)
○ Solicits individuals or very small teams to work with the Coronagraph Instrument
team to plan and execute its technology demonstration observations.
○ Selected proposals will have three-year terms; available funding can support
≲$200K/year awards
○ Expect to select around six CPP proposals, which will join to form the single team
that plans and executes Coronagraph Instrument technology demonstration
observations
○ Anticipate offering this opportunity category again in ROSES-24
1.1 Overview of this Opportunity
This Program Element solicits proposals aimed at supporting the progress of and
exploiting the scientific and technical data from the Nancy Grace Roman Space
Telescope, hereafter Roman (http://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov/). Roman, formerly known as
the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope or WFIRST, is NASA’s implementation of the
top-ranked large space mission recommended by the National Academies decadal
survey of astronomy and astrophysics for 2012-2021, New Worlds, New Horizons in
Astronomy and Astrophysics (NWNH; National Academies Press,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12951). Roman is currently in development,
with a launch commitment no later than May 2027 and with launch currently planned for
late 2026. The mission science objectives are fulfilled by a large-area, agile telescope

D.14-3
with a large field-of-view near-infrared camera. Roman also includes a coronagraph
technology demonstration instrument.
1.2 Overview of the Roman Mission
Roman is a NASA Astrophysics Observatory featuring a wide-field 2.4m near-infrared-
optimized telescope equipped with a precision camera, the Wide-Field Instrument, and
a Coronagraph Instrument technology demonstration. Overview descriptions of the
Roman Observatory are provided in Akeson et al. (2019;
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190205569A/abstract) and Spergel et al.
(2015; https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150303757S/abstract). Pursuant to
the recommendation of NWNH, Roman will execute three “Core Community Surveys”: a
High-Latitude Wide-Area Survey, a High-Latitude Time Domain Survey, and a Galactic
Bulge Time Domain Survey. For more details of these surveys see Section 3.3. These
surveys are targeted at producing a wealth of data capable of addressing key questions
on dark energy and exoplanet demographics. An important aspect of the core
community surveys is that they will also enable investigations on a broad array of other
subjects. The detailed definition of the Core Community Surveys will be defined using
an open, community-based process to ensure the greatest overall suitability and use of
the data by the science community. In addition to the Core Community Surveys, at least
one quarter of the prime mission time (1.25 years out of the first 5 years) is set aside for
other “General Astrophysics (GA) Surveys” yet to be defined. Roman’s surveys will be
specified using an approach in accordance with findings of the Committee on
Astronomy and Astrophysics in their recent report Roman Space Telescope Observing
Time Allocation Principles.
A General Investigator program will commence about one year prior to launch and will
solicit peer-reviewed proposals for support for science investigations and/or new GA
surveys conducted with the Wide Field Instrument (WFI). Data from all Roman mission
observations will be publicly available immediately after routine pipeline processing. See
Section 4.2 regarding grantee-generated data products etc.
Roman’s Coronagraph Instrument is a technology demonstration designed to prove a
variety of flight hardware, software, and observational/data analysis techniques
necessary to mature NASA’s ability to build a next-generation exoplanet
characterization mission. The Coronagraph Instrument will provide visible light high-
contrast imaging and is designed to be capable of directly detecting the reflected light
from gas-giant-scale planets around nearby stars. Designed with many cutting-edge
capabilities, the Coronagraph Instrument is by its nature experimental and several of
these capabilities are likely to be fully exploited only by the efforts of researchers joining
the Community Participation Program element of this solicitation (see Section 2.4).
The Roman Space Telescope Project Office is at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
(GSFC), which also oversees the work on the Optical Telescope Assembly, WFI, the
Spacecraft Bus, System Integration, and the mission operations center. NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) oversees the work on the Coronagraph Instrument. In a
distributed Ground System architecture, the Science Center functions are provided by
the Science Operations Center (SOC) at the Space Telescope Science Institute
(STScI), the Science Support Center (SSC) at NASA’s IPAC, and the Project Science

D.14-4
Office at GSFC. The SOC at STScI leads the work on the mission's observation
scheduling system, WFI data processing system for the direct-imaging mode, and the
mission's entire data archive. The SSC at IPAC leads the work on the General
Investigator program, WFI data processing system for spectroscopy, data processing
environment for the Coronagraph Instrument, and the high-level processing pipeline for
microlensing.
Inclusion is a core NASA value, and diversity and inclusion are prioritized in Strategy
4.1 from A Vision for Scientific Excellence (formerly known as the Science Plan). NASA
defines diversity broadly as “The entire universe of differences and similarities” and
inclusion as “the full participation, belonging, and contribution of organizations and
individuals.” NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) believes in the importance of
diverse and inclusive teams to tackle strategic problems and maximize scientific return,
and Roman seeks to promote such opportunities and benefits across the Astrophysics
science community. Proposers are expected to support NASA’s value of inclusion in
their proposals.
2 Details of This Opportunity
2.1 Categories of Proposal
This solicitation represents a tripartite opportunity to provide for participation of the
astrophysics community in the Roman mission. There are three categories of proposals
described in the following three subsections and they are Wide Field Science, Project
Infrastructure Teams, and Coronagraph Community Participation.
The first category solicits proposals for Wide Field Science (WFS) investigations
spanning a broad range of science preparation efforts. These can relate to any topic
that can be addressed with Roman WFI observations, both Core Community Surveys
and General Astrophysics Surveys. This opportunity is anticipated to occur at least once
more prior to the launch of Roman, and will cover investigations of two-to-four-year
duration. This is the proposal category that will support the majority of WFI-related
investigations.
The second category solicits Project Infrastructure Teams (PITs). This category of
proposals provides sustained funding for teams to develop scientific infrastructure (for
example, software tools, analyses, calibrations, simulations, etc.) needed to enable the
community to pursue Roman’s ambitious science goals with the Wide Field Instrument
in cosmology and exoplanet demographics that are part of Roman’s mission success
criteria. Additional science areas with the Wide Field Instrument that require extensive
and sustained infrastructure development will also be considered. This opportunity
anticipates selecting teams to continue through the prime phase of the mission
implemented as an initial 5-year award anticipated to be renewable to approximately
two years after the completion of the prime mission.
The third category solicits membership in the Coronagraph Community Participation
Program (CPP) Team. This team will work collaboratively with others on the CPP and
with Roman Coronagraph personnel to prepare for and use the Coronagraph to fulfill its
objectives associated with an in-space technology demonstration of a high-contrast
coronagraph with active optics. This provides an opportunity for proposers to work with

D.14-5
the Coronagraph Instrument team and SSC to maximize the long-term value of the
Coronagraph Instrument by participating in instrument testing and by preparing for and
executing observations to plan and execute observations during the Coronagraph
technology demonstration phase. CPP proposals will be selected for an initial three-year
term. Renewals would extend the CPP into flight operations to cover the launch+21-
month technology demonstration phase of the instrument (see Figure D.14-1). The
possibility of future opportunities to augment or refresh team membership will depend
on the expected and/or demonstrated performance of the Coronagraph.
2.2 Wide Field Science
This opportunity provides support to prepare for and enhance the science return of
Roman that can be addressed with the WFI. The WFI provides multiband imaging and
slitless spectroscopy over wide areas, and unique capabilities for time domain studies.
This will enable powerful new opportunities in a broad range of science areas including
Solar System objects, exoplanets, stellar astrophysics, star formation, galactic structure,
galaxy evolution, cosmology, and much more. WFS proposals can relate to any science
topic that can be addressed with Roman WFI observations, both Core Community
Surveys and General Astrophysics Surveys.
The purpose of the WFS proposal category is to engage the science community to
prepare for and enhance Roman science capabilities and to provide input and support
for the Roman project and Science Centers (the SSC and the SOC); see Section 5.1.
2.2.1 Content of WFS proposals
WFS proposals may be focused on a specific science research topic, but should also
describe how the investigation A) prepares for and enhances WFI science more
broadly; and B) supports the Roman project and Science Centers.
A. Preparing for and Enhancing Roman WFI Science
Eligible activities include any combination of the following topics:
● Preparatory observations using ground- and/or space-based observatories to
prepare for future Roman science observations and/or to provide calibration
capability;
● Development of Roman analysis software beyond that provided by the Science
Centers (see Section 3.2 for information on the document library that elucidates
the Science Centers’ roles). This could include topics like machine learning
techniques in time domain astrophysics, high precision astrometric measurement
techniques, photometry for extended sources/backgrounds, etc.;
● Development of algorithms for joint processing with data from other space- or
ground-based observatories such as deblending algorithms, photometric redshift
training and calibration, or forced photometry;
● Theoretical and/or phenomenological modeling directly related to Roman
capabilities;
● Instrument calibration and characterization;
● Development of survey strategies;
● Development of simulation tools, producing simulated datasets, and conducting
or participating in data challenges; and/or

D.14-6
 ● Other activities not listed here that would prepare for and/or enhance WFI
science, and for which the proposer can make a compelling case.
The proposal should demonstrate why the proposed work should be performed now,
rather than closer to launch or post-launch. For context around the above work, please
refer to the Document Library (Section 3.2).
B. Supporting the Roman project and Science Centers
WFS-supported teams are expected to form part of the funded Roman science
community providing support and guidance to the Roman project and Science Centers.
To be responsive to this category, proposals should describe their planned
contributions, that pertain to the proposed work in any of the following areas:
● Providing algorithms for possible incorporation into operational Science
Center data reduction pipelines in specific areas, including, e.g., catalog
creation, point-spread-function modeling and source fitting, galaxy shape
measurements, astrometry, generation of simulated detector artifacts and
science scenes, and/or artificial source injection;
● Distributing and documenting any science or analysis software products
that are produced as part of the effort, to the extent these could be of
broader value to the astronomical community, in public repositories (e.g.,
GitHub). Teams may be asked to support the installation and/or
maintenance of their software in the Roman Science Platform for
community use;
● Providing any data products that are produced as part of the effort, to the
extent these could be of broader value to the astronomical community, for
ingestion into the Roman Archive. Such products would need to be
formatted and configured in accordance with standard guidelines for
archival High Level Science Products
(https://outerspace.stsci.edu/display/MASTDOCS/HLSP+How-To+Guide);
● Providing data products that can be used for Roman data challenges for
the astronomical community, and working with the Science Centers on
coordinating and adjudicating such challenges;
● Providing simulated data that could be used for verification and validation of
operational data reduction pipelines, and/or participate in beta-testing of
operational data reduction pipelines, including scientific validation of output
data products and quantitative assessment versus mission science
requirements;
● Providing sample Roman observing programs and/or implementations of
these programs in the Astronomer's Proposal Tool (APT) software, and
assisting with user testing of the Roman implementation of this software;
● Leading and/or assisting in the organization of workshops, splinter
sessions, hack days, etc. to help the mission to engage and inform the
broad astronomical community on Roman science topics; and/or
● Participate actively in cross-mission working groups on a range of topics, to
provide advice and to help define strategies for calibrations, analysis software,
and other topics.

D.14-7
WFS Proposals need not identify contributions to all of these areas; meaningful
engagement in a specific subset is the goal rather than the breadth of activities covered.
If the proposed investigation would develop software and pipeline algorithms, the
proposal must demonstrate that this provides support, enhancement, or alternatives to
what the Science Centers are developing as part of their pipelines (see Section 3.2).
2.2.2 Optional Enhancement for Student Research
Each WFS proposal may include a 2-page addendum immediately following the
Science/Technical/Management section, but before the references and citations (see
Table D.14-1 in Section 4.1), proposing research activities to be conducted by
undergraduate students as part of the proposed work. This may be supported by an
additional separate item in the budget of no more than $20K/year. This is not included in
the notional budget given below.
2.2.3 Responsibilities of Wide Field Science Teams
Successful WFS proposers must work with the Roman Science Centers and the Roman
project to maximize the utility of their activities for the benefit of the entire community
(see Section 5.1). Proposed investigations should be explicit about what their
deliverables are intended to be; where, when, and how any products will be delivered;
and what the perceived value of these products are. Proposers should refer to the
description of the Data Management Plans in Section 4.2 for more information on
requirements on making scientific information public.
2.2.4 Structure of Wide Field Science Proposals
WFS Proposals can be submitted as “regular” (for terms of two years and typically up to
$150K/year) or “large” (for terms of up to four years and typically up to $500K/year)
depending on the complexity and scope of the investigation. An additional $20K/year
may be added for Student Research; see Section 2.2.2, above.
“Large” programs must provide an enhanced benefit to the broad science community,
beyond that expected of more focused “regular” programs. These benefits should be
measurable, tangible, and clearly described in the proposal. The page count for the
Science-Technical-Management section of WFS proposals is limited to no more than 8
for regular WFS proposals and 10 for large WFS proposals.
2.3 Project Infrastructure Teams
The role of the Project Infrastructure Teams (PITs) is to partner with the Science
Centers to provide comprehensive and sustained support to the Roman project and the
science community for research areas that require long-term scientific infrastructure
development. PIT proposals will be evaluated primarily on the degree to which the
proposed infrastructure (for example, software tools, analyses, calibrations, simulations,
etc.) would benefit both the astronomical community and the Roman Project. NASA
intends to select proposals to provide infrastructure to support the science objectives in
cosmology and exoplanet demographics (see Section 3.4), since these are needed to
meet the mission success criteria. Proposals for infrastructure teams to support science
with the Wide Field Instrument in areas other than the mission objectives in cosmology
and exoplanet demographics will be considered for selection if a compelling case is

D.14-8
made that the community would benefit from a substantial and sustained effort in the
chosen area at the present time.
2.3.1 Responsibilities of Project Infrastructure Teams
The primary responsibilities of each selected PIT are (1) to develop and maintain such
infrastructural tools and capabilities as are needed to address the mission objective that
is the proposal’s focus; (2) support Community Science Collaborations; and (3) support
the Roman project in partnership with the Science Centers (the SSC and the SOC).
2.3.1.1 Infrastructure Development
Tools and capabilities, as mentioned above, could include but are not limited to:
● Observing program modeling needed to assess the adequacy of a Core
Community Survey design for meeting the mission scientific objective (see
Section 3.4);
● Data processing and analysis software needed to produce additional high-level
science data products to be derived from the Core Community Surveys (e.g.,
source catalogs and source classifications or properties, population statistics,
power spectra, etc.);
● Tools/pipelines to derive data products unique to meeting the particular scientific
objective (e.g., photometric redshift estimates, galaxy shape measurements,
crowded field light curves, calibrations of photometry, astrometry, spectrometry,
etc.;
● Analysis tools/pipelines to enable the astronomical community to derive high-
level scientific results (cosmological parameters, planetary formation models,
etc.); and/or
● Simulation and modeling tools needed for testing of data analysis tools (for
instance, to validate photometry, completeness, reliability, etc.).
In addition, each proposal must describe the value to the Roman community of starting
this work now, as opposed to doing it later, or even after launch. Proposals must include
a list of the tools, pipelines, and capabilities the proposing team believes to be
necessary to achieve their objectives. This list must be self-contained within the PIT
proposal and not depend on other PIT or WFS proposals, but could leverage existing
tools or pipelines. Each item must be described in enough detail to evaluate its
importance to the overall proposal, its impact on the mission objectives and its value for
the broader astronomical community.
2.3.1.2 Supporting Community Science Collaborations
The Roman mission envisages a set of Community Science Collaborations for major
areas of Roman science. Project Infrastructure Teams will support the Community
Science Collaboration(s) relevant to their scientific area. While the details of the
structure and nature of these collaborations will be defined at a later date, each
collaboration will likely be expected to appoint a Scientific Spokesperson, which will be
a rotating position. PITs will regularly report on their progress on the science
infrastructure, and the scientific spokespeople will represent their science area, to the
Roman project. PIT proposals should briefly describe plans to engage the broader
community to enable a thorough representation of the community in the collaboration for

D.14-9
their science area. As a reminder, the detailed definition of the Core Community
Surveys is not under the authority of the PITs, as these will be defined using an open,
community-based process to ensure the greatest overall suitability and use of the data
by the science community.
2.3.1.3 Supporting the Roman Project and Science Centers
The selected PITs will support the Roman project and Science Centers in a wide range
of activities including observatory calibration and commissioning activities, software
pipeline algorithms, data product validation, and assessments of performance relevant
to optimizing observing scenarios. Proposals should budget some of the team’s
collective time for Project-supporting activities. PIT proposals should describe, for most
or all of the following items, how the team members would:
● Participate actively in Roman-related technical working groups, providing
advice and helping define strategies for calibrations, analysis software, and
other topics;
● Provide algorithms for possible incorporation into operational Science
Center data reduction pipelines in specific areas. These could include, e.g.,
catalog creation, point-spread-function modeling and source fitting, galaxy
shape measurements, astrometry, generation of simulated detector
artifacts and science scenes, and/or artificial source injection;
● Distribute and document in public repositories (e.g., GitHub) any science or
analysis software products that are produced as part of the effort, if it
appears that these could be of broader value to the astronomical
community. Teams may be asked to support the installation and/or
maintenance of their software in the Roman Science Platform for
community use;
● Provide any data products that are produced as part of the effort (including
those associated with work in Section 2.3.1.1 above) for ingestion into the
Roman Archive, if it appears that these could be of broader value to the
astronomical community. Such products would need to be formatted and
configured in accordance with standard guidelines for archival High Level
Science Products
(https://outerspace.stsci.edu/display/MASTDOCS/HLSP+How-To+Guide);
● Provide data products that can be used as Roman data challenges for the
astronomical community, and work with the Science Centers on
coordinating and adjudicating such challenges;
● Assist in the verification and validation of operational data reduction
pipelines. This could include providing test data that could be used for
verification and validation activities, and/or participating in beta-testing of
operational data reduction pipelines, and/or conducting scientific validation
of output data products and quantitative assessment versus mission
science requirements;
● Provide sample Roman observing programs and/or implementations of
these programs in the Roman Astronomer's Proposal Tool (APT) software,
and assist with user testing of APT; and/or

D.14-10
 ● Lead and/or assist in the organization of workshops, splinter sessions, hack
days, etc. to help the mission to engage and inform the broad astronomical
community in Roman science topics.
If the proposed investigation would develop software and pipelines, the proposal should
demonstrate that this is distinct from or extends what the Science Centers are
developing as part of their pipelines (see Section 3.2 for details). Selected investigations
should plan to assist the Science Centers as needed in preparing their data products to
be well characterized and documented for the benefit of the community. The PITs will
report to the Roman Senior Project Scientist; see Section 5.2 for additional information
regarding how the PIT teams will be managed.
2.3.2 Unique Requirements for Project Infrastructure Team Proposals
Project Infrastructure Team proposals must include plans to develop a team code of
conduct, publication policies, and scientific talks/conference policy. Given the important
service role of the PITs in providing well managed infrastructure for the relevant science
community, proposals should include (1) a demonstration of experienced management
leadership within the team as a whole, with mechanisms to train, mentor, and provide
opportunities for early career scientists to gain this experience, and (2) a suggested
governance, prioritization, and resource allocation approach that represents the relevant
scientific community to guide this management.
The period of performance of Project Infrastructure Team proposals must be 5 years.
Selected teams are anticipated to continue via extension(s) up to as much as two years
beyond the end of the prime mission phase. Proposals must describe the value to the
Roman project and the astronomical community of the infrastructure to be developed,
operated, and maintained through the end of the prime mission phase.
The Science-Technical-Management section of PIT proposals is limited to no more than
15 pages.
2.4 Coronagraph Community Participation Program
The Roman Coronagraph Instrument is designed to meet a set of objectives associated
with development of advanced starlight suppression technologies (see Section 3.5).
Space operation of the Coronagraph Instrument will provide a high-fidelity, integrated
system-level demonstration of an active coronagraph in the presence of actual
observatory disturbances and astrophysical noise sources. This directly responds to
goals identified in the past two Decadal Surveys in Astronomy and Astrophysics, by
maturing technologies that will enable a future mission capable of detecting and
characterizing Earth-size exoplanets in the habitable zones of nearby stars.
Accordingly, the Roman Coronagraph will be used in a way that provides valuable
observational experience relevant to the large strategic mission recommended by the
2020 Decadal Survey.
2.4.1 Community Participation Program Team Responsibilities
NASA intends to select several Roman Coronagraph Community Participation Program
(CPP) proposals to form a single, cohesive CPP Team rather than a collection of
individual teams; the CPP Team is expected to work collaboratively with the
Coronagraph Project and the SSC. The role of the Coronagraph CPP Team is to
D.14-11
maximize the long-term value of the technology demonstration activities and datasets to
the community, including the value to the future exoplanet detection mission
recommended by the 2020 Decadal Survey. This will be accomplished by working to
ensure the Coronagraph meets its technology demonstration requirement and meets or
exceeds as many of its objectives as possible (described in Section 3.5). The CPP
Team is expected to accomplish this by engaging with the broader community on how
best to use the Coronagraph Instrument during its technology demonstration phase; for
example, by soliciting community input on target selection. As a single team formed
from multiple proposals, selected investigators are expected to engage with and
contribute to the collective CPP Team effort, even if it is not entirely aligned with their
originally proposed effort. For example, the CPP Team will constitute topical working
groups on specific issues, such as data processing, calibration, operations, and target
selection. Selected CPP investigation teams will be invited to contribute member(s) to
these working groups and serve as subject matter experts to assist the Coronagraph
Project and the SSC; this service is expected to be incorporated in the plan of work in
the proposal. See Section 5.3 for additional information regarding the management of
CPP proposal awardees. In summary, the investigations that successful proposers may
eventually perform must inevitably adapt to the as-built capabilities of the Coronagraph
Instrument and the needs of the Coronagraph Project as they evolve through
integration, test, and operations.
2.4.2 Technology Demonstration Topics for Community Participation
The CPP Team will collectively address the following topical areas:
A. Modeling of astrophysical targets, such as exoplanets or disks, that are within
the Coronagraph’s expected sensitivity, to support target selection and
interpretation of results;
B. Selecting suitable observing and calibration targets for the technology
demonstration phase;
C. Conducting preparatory observations of high priority targets;
D. Planning observations for the technology demonstration phase;
E. Making image simulations and/or performance predictions;
F. Developing algorithms and software for data analysis and calibration, including,
but not limited to: photon-counting detector data processing, photometry,
astrometry, polarimetry, spectroscopy, and point spread function (speckle)
subtraction;
G. Assisting in laboratory and Coronagraph integration and test and/or evaluating
test performance (including baseline wavefront sensing and control) against
anticipated operational performance;
H. Assisting the Coronagraph Project in commissioning, operations, and/or
anomaly resolution of the primary required observing mode (Hybrid Lyot Band 1
imaging) and baseline wavefront sensing and control strategy;
I. Assisting the Coronagraph Project in the commissioning, operations, and/or
anomaly resolution of observing modes beyond the primary required observing
mode (see restriction #ii below);

D.14-12
 J. Researching high-order wavefront sensing and control algorithms that could
serve as alternatives to the Coronagraph’s baseline approach (see restriction #ii,
#iii and #iv below);
K. Making public the results of the technology demonstration phase via peer-
reviewed journals, white papers, and/or other presentations;
L. Engaging the astronomical community to ensure that technology demonstration
phase observations have long-term value to both the technology and science
communities; and
M. Conducting enabling activities that would best be done in the coming few years
to prepare for the possible further use of the Roman Coronagraph beyond the
initial technology demonstration phase.
Proposals must describe how the investigators could contribute to one or more of the
topical areas above. Given the collaborative nature of the CPP Team, the proposal may
describe efforts that would require additional person-power beyond that funded in the
individual proposal (e.g.: leading or contributing to a topical working group, or
collaborating with the Coronagraph Project or SSC). Contingent on the availability of
funds, progress of the project, and continued relevance to the Roman Coronagraph,
NASA anticipates offering an extension opportunity beyond the initial three-year period
of performance, to continue CPP Team work through the technology demonstration
operations phase (See Section 5.3). Therefore, proposals are encouraged to describe
potential contributions in the topical areas above that would occur beyond the initial
three-year period of performance funded in this Solicitation, although such work will not
be part of the submitted budget. Proposals for the CPP category may include topical
areas not listed above. Such work will be considered for selection if a compelling case is
made that the community would benefit from efforts in the chosen extra-topical area(s)
at the present time.
The following restrictions apply to CPP proposal topics:
i. CPP proposals may not include preparatory observations, modeling, or other
work focused on astrophysical objects that the Roman coronagraph is not
expected to be able to observe either at the current best estimate performance
level, or at the performance level enabled only by proposed work in topics I and
J. Proposed targets must be observable within the mission’s technology
demonstration phase (within the first 1.5 years of mission operations illustrated in
Figure D.14-1).
ii. Proposals must not address solely topics I and/or J. NASA is not presently able
to commit to supporting contributed wavefront sensing and control algorithms
(topic J) or to fully funding commissioning and use of “best effort” or
“unsupported” observing modes (topic I). The list of modes and their level of
support is available in the Coronagraph Technical Information slide deck
(https://roman.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/Coronagraph_Technical_Information.pdf).
As resources allow, NASA expects to prioritize “best effort” modes above
“unsupported” modes, although not exclusively. Proposals including topics I
and/or J must therefore have a plan of work that includes enough scope in other
topical areas to provide a significant focus should I and J not be implementable in
the 18-month technology demonstration phase.

D.14-13
 iii. CPP proposals must not include basic research into wavefront sensing and
control, only the application of algorithms that could be implemented with the
Roman Coronagraph.
iv. This is an open opportunity. However, U.S. export control laws and regulations
may limit the Roman Project’s ability to exchange technical information on topic I
with foreign persons. Export of controlled information is possible in certain
circumstances; teams can bring their specific situation to the attention of the
NASA point of contact for this program in advance of submission.
2.4.3 Unique Requirements for Community Participation Program Proposals
The proposal must describe how the PI has engaged in collaborations, highlighting any
activities that were boundary-crossing (e.g., institutional, research group, or topical)
and/or required an adaptive approach. Examples include but are not limited to: working
group participation or coordination; collaborative code development; trade study
facilitation; code of conduct development or management; mentorship; and team- and
project-supporting service work. The areas of expertise of each identified team member
must be discussed in the body of the proposal or in the table of Personnel and Work
Effort.
The page count for the central Science-Technical-Management section of CPP
proposals is limited to no more than 8 pages.
2.5 Specific Considerations and Exclusions
● This program element excludes proposals primarily aimed at any instrumentation
development efforts, even for the collection of supporting observational, calibration,
or laboratory data, as such proposals are more likely to be in-scope for Astrophysics
Research and Analysis Program described in Program element D.3 of this ROSES
NRA.
● Proposals primarily aimed at conducting theoretical investigations (including basic
theory, modeling, simulation, or related work) must be clearly and substantially
connected to observational data from Roman. Otherwise, such investigations would
most likely be appropriate for submission to the Astrophysics Theory Program
described in program element D.4 of this ROSES NRA.
● If a proposal is offered that relies to a substantial extent on a previous NASA award,
it should include a description of the predecessor effort, including any significant
findings, and describe how the proposed work extends the previous
accomplishments. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers for more details.
● The Principal Investigator (PI) institution is expected to directly fund paid participants
via subawards, except for those at a Government laboratory, including NASA
Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). However, the proposed budget
must explicitly include the funding required for participating Co-Investigator(s) at
Government laboratories, including NASA Centers and JPL.
● All proposals must include a data management plan (DMP) compliant with the
specifications provided in Section 1.2 of D.1, The Astrophysics Research Program
Overview. See Section 4.2 for details.

D.14-14
3 Programmatic Information
3.1 ROSES Policies for Proposers
All categories of U.S. organizations are eligible to propose to this program element.
Proposers may consult Section III of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, for a full
description of eligible institutions, participation by researchers at non-US institutions,
and other high-level information and default rules. Individuals may participate in multiple
proposals in response to this program element. NASA reserves the right to make partial
selections, see Section II(a) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Contributions
to the proposed investigation from independently supported sources are permitted.
These could include, but are not limited to: assets funded by other Government
agencies or institutions; staff supported by other means; telescope time or data from
non-NASA facilities; and proprietary data or tools for relevant activities. All contributed
portions of the proposed effort must be clearly described in the proposal and
differentiated from the NASA-supported portions (see Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation for an example table). The proposal must clearly indicate
whether the contributions are merely enhancing synergistic activities or essential, in
which case a letter is required, see Table D.14-1 in Section 4.3. The roles given to team
members must also reflect this, e.g., those performing a role essential for the
completion of the project are Co-Is, whether funded or not.
3.2 Document Library
All proposals submitted to this program element must relate strongly to the Roman
mission and its scientific observational program or technology development objectives.
A website with technical documentation and a description of the Science Centers’ roles
and responsibilities (including plans for software and pipeline development) can be
found at: https://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/roses.html. This site also contains links
(in the section named Design Reference Mission and Progress Reports) to work done
during mission formulation by groups in the previous generation of the Roman science
team, called the Science Investigation Teams. There is also a description of the various
groups and activities related to this solicitation (e.g., the Core Community Survey
definition process; technical working groups; community-led science consortia) available
at the webpage Core Community Survey Definition process.
3.3 Roman Observing Program
Roman will execute the three Core Community Surveys (High Latitude Wide Area
Survey, High Latitude Time Domain Survey, and Galactic Bulge Time Domain Survey),
operate the Coronagraph Instrument for technology demonstration, and spend at least
25% of available time observing General Astrophysics Survey programs based on
future selections.
The specifics of the Core Community Survey observational design will be defined
through an open community process that includes broad representation from the
scientific community, in accordance with findings of the Roman Space Telescope
Observing Time Allocation Principles report. These surveys will be designed to support
a wide range of scientific investigations. Beginning in 2023, the Roman project, the
SOC, and the SSC will engage the community via open means (e.g., white papers,

D.14-15
open workshops, etc.) to define the surveys in detail. PIT and WFS teams will help this
process by, in part, providing tools to enable the development of quantitative metrics for
science outcomes as a function of survey design.
The Core Community Surveys will provide the data needed to address Roman’s science
objectives in Cosmology and Exoplanet demographics, but will be optimized to
maximize overall science return across all topics. This is aligned with the finding of
Roman Space Telescope Observing Time Allocation Principles, which states that
including consideration of broader science in plans for the Core Community Surveys
“would enhance the scientific reach of the mission.” To verify mission design, a
candidate observing program, known as the design reference mission, was defined to
demonstrate that Roman can meet its science requirements. While these surveys are
not what will be executed, they provide an illustrative example of the likely nature of
each Core Community Survey. The notional designs of the Core Community Surveys
are described in more detail at https://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov/observations.html.
Proposal opportunities for funding to analyze Roman flight data, and/or new
observations will be released around one year before launch. The present proposal
opportunity is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, a means to access
observing time on Roman.
3.4 Investigations Related to Mission Science Objectives
The mission science objectives are to perform a wide field infrared survey down to
26.5 AB magnitude; study the expansion history of the Universe using supernova, weak
lensing and galaxy redshift survey techniques; study growth of structure in the Universe
using weak lensing, redshift space distortions (RSD) and galaxy cluster techniques;
perform a statistical census of exoplanets from outer habitable zone to free floating
planets via the microlensing technique; and devote a significant fraction of mission
lifetime to a peer-reviewed General Investigator program. The cosmology and exoplanet
objectives map to the following science investigations.
EXOPLANET MICROLENSING INVESTIGATION: support the Roman project in the design and
execution of a survey that provides a census of exoplanetary systems using the
gravitational microlensing technique. Enable the astronomical community to use the
data resulting from this survey to produce a statistical census of exoplanetary systems,
with focus on planets from the outer habitable zone to free floating planets, including
analogs of all the planets in our Solar System with masses greater than that of Mars.
TYPE IA SUPERNOVAE (SNE IA) INVESTIGATION: support the Roman project in the design
and execution of a survey that provides a statistically robust measurement of the scale
of the Universe at redshifts up to 2, using one or more techniques employing a standard
candle approach to measure cosmological distances with sub-percent precision. Enable
the astronomical community to use the data resulting from this survey to determine the
expansion history of the universe to test possible explanations of its apparent
accelerating expansion, including dark energy and modification to Einstein’s gravity
theories.
WEAK LENSING AND CLUSTER GROWTH INVESTIGATION: support the Roman project in the
design and execution of a galaxy imaging survey with sub-percent precision using the

D.14-16
weak lensing, galaxy cluster, and/or related techniques, at redshifts up to z = 2 with
high-precision cross-checks between the techniques. Enable the astronomical
community to use the data resulting from this survey to determine the expansion history
of the Universe and the growth history of its largest structures (e.g., dark matter
clustering and the growth of structure) to test possible explanations of its apparent
accelerating expansion, including dark energy and modification to Einstein’s gravity
theories.
GALAXY REDSHIFT SURVEY INVESTIGATION: support the Roman project in the design and
execution of a galaxy spectroscopy survey using one or more techniques employing a
standard ruler (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations) approach to measure the expansion rate
and/or a growth of structure probe (RSD) and/or related techniques, at redshifts up to
z = 2 with high-precision cross-checks between the techniques. Enable the astronomical
community to use the data resulting from this survey to determine the expansion history
of the Universe and the growth history of its largest structures to test possible
explanations of its apparent accelerating expansion, including dark energy and
modification to Einstein’s gravity theories.
3.5 Mission Technology Objectives and Coronagraph Threshold Technology
Requirement
The Roman Mission has one Threshold Technology Requirement (TTR) and five
technology Objectives associated with the Coronagraph Instrument. The Coronagraph
Instrument must meet its TTR. The Coronagraph Instrument additionally aims to meet
its Objectives on a “best effort” basis. The CPP will work together with the Coronagraph
Project and SSC to not only meet the TTR, but also to meet or exceed as many of the
Objectives as possible. For the purposes of a CPP proposal, proposers should assume
Coronagraph current best estimate performance (cf. technical resources) and the
possibility of all designed modes of operation, and that these would be used to meet or
exceed all the objectives below. However, NASA reserves the right to renegotiate and
alter the scope of work for CPP grants should these expectations change significantly.
THRESHOLD TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT (TTR): Roman shall be able to measure (using the
Coronagraph Instrument), with SNR ≥ 5, the brightness of an astrophysical point source
located between 6 and 9 λ/D from an adjacent star with a VAB magnitude ≤ 5, with a flux
ratio ≥ 10-7; the bandpass shall have a central wavelength ≤ 600 nm and a bandwidth
≥ 10%. Note that the only supported observing mode that can satisfy this requirement is
Hybrid Lyot Coronagraph Band 1 imaging.
CORONAGRAPH WITH ACTIVE WAVEFRONT CONTROL: Roman would fulfill this objective by
detecting a companion object next to a star, on at least two stars, at a contrast level and
separation that requires a functional coronagraph and wavefront control capability.
CORONAGRAPH ELEMENTS: Roman would fulfill this objective by demonstrating in-space
operation of: coronagraph masks, low-order wavefront sensor, high-actuator-count
deformable mirrors, and low-noise detectors.
ADVANCED CORONAGRAPH ALGORITHMS: Roman would fulfill this objective by
demonstrating the ability to modify the wavefront sensing and control algorithms during
the prime science mission. Note that NASA cannot presently commit to testing or

D.14-17
implementing contributed algorithms during the technology demonstration phase of the
mission (the 21 months following launch).
HIGH CONTRAST PERFORMANCE CHARACTERIZATION: Roman would fulfill this objective by
gathering data on a target star that enables in-flight performance characterization of the
coronagraph, including a revisit of the target and a repointing maneuver.
HIGH-CONTRAST DATA PROCESSING: Roman would fulfill this objective by producing
photometric, astrometric, and spectrographic measurements of astrophysical object(s),
including at least one point source and extended object. Note that polarimetric
observations fall under this objective, as a subset of photometric measurements.
3.6 Timeline for the Roman Mission
All proposals must describe a complete investigation with goals and tasks that address
one of the categories listed in Section 2 above. The goals described may take more
than the proposed period of performance (see Section 2) to be fully realized. Proposals
should make clear how much progress is planned in the proposed term towards the
goals. The tasks included in the proposal, its work plan, its table of work effort, and its
budget, must all be for the actual period of performance.
A notional timeline for periods of performance is shown below in Figure D.14-1. The
intent of this solicitation is to put in place teams that can support Roman development.
The mission timeline presented does not represent a commitment from NASA.
Figure D.14-1. Proposal periods of performance for planning purposes

3.7 Budget for Planning

Because of the varied nature of the three categories, the expectations for funding are
different. Depending on the balance of proposals submitted, the available total
allocation will be divided between the selections to fund the best ensemble of proposals;
this precludes providing a breakdown of annual total funds at the category level.
For WFS, a “large” investigation would be expected to cover a term of up to four years
with an average budget typically up to $500K/yr. A WFS “regular” investigation would
cover two years at a budget typically up to $150K/yr. An additional $20K/year may be
added for Student Research; see Section 2.2.2, above. A total of approximately 20 WFS
selections are anticipated, depending in part on funding limits.
The CPP proposal selections are intended to form the Coronagraph Community
Participation Team, with an initial term of three years. Approximately six selections are
expected to be made to fulfill this intent. The annual budget for each CPP award,

D.14-18
including other direct and all indirect costs, should not exceed $200K per year on
average. This should include funded travel for work conducted onsite (to the extent
desirable and reasonable) with the Coronagraph team at JPL and/or SSC. The budget
shall include at least 1 in-person CPP team meeting per year at JPL, although CPP
team meetings may in practice be held at other locations.
Project Infrastructure Teams are intended primarily to support the future exploitation, by
members of the Team and by the astronomical community, of the data resulting from
the surveys to fulfill the scientific objectives of Roman in its areas of cosmology and
exoplanets, and other areas with sustained infrastructure needs over an initial five-year
term. Proposal budgets are expected to be in the range of $500K - $2000K per year on
average, although wide-ranging investigations may exceed this. Note, that the final
budgets (and scope of work) of as-awarded investigations will be negotiated with the
project following selection. It is anticipated that at least two and no more than five
proposals would be selected in the Project Infrastructure Team category.
Proposers must redact salary, fringe and overhead as described in Section IV(b)iii of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
3.8 International Team Members
Participation by individuals at non-U.S. organizations on proposals to this program
element is welcome, barring bilateral work with The People’s Republic of China and
subject to NASA’s policy of no exchange of funds, in which each government supports
its own national participants and associated costs, see Section IIIc of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation. NASA funding may not be used for subcontracted foreign
research efforts, including travel. Proposals including contributions from foreign partners
should include by name any foreign team members and must be accompanied by
letters of endorsement from their government agency or funding/sponsoring institution.
Information and data will be available to foreign participants to extent allowable under
ITAR or other laws or policies.
PIs of PIT and WFS proposals should anticipate that scientists with support from a
foreign partner agency will be engaged in working on Roman collaboratively. To the
extent that these relationships can be identified before submission and included in the
proposal, this is welcome. PIs should therefore anticipate that scientists from foreign
institutions identified after submission may be offered to their team as additional
unfunded Co-Investigators, with the expectation that inclusion in that team should not
be unreasonably withheld.
NASA has made agreements with JAXA, ESA, CNES, and MPIA to cooperate on
Roman. The CPP Core Team (defined in Section 5.3) will also include representatives
appointed from each of those four international partner entities. These partner CPP
Core Team members may choose to bring in additional team members onto the CPP
Team. The CPP Team will thus consist of both the U.S. and international team
members, and all members will be expected to engage in the collaboration.
3.9 Availability of NASA-Provided Computational Resources
Those investigators whose research requires high-performance computing should
refer to the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, Section I(e), “NASA-provided High-

D.14-19
End Computing Resources.” This section describes the procedure that proposers to
this program element must follow to apply for computing time on either of two NASA
computing facilities at the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Computational and
Information Sciences and Technology Office or at the Ames Research Center’s
Advanced Supercomputing Division.
The Roman SOC is developing a cloud-based data-analysis platform (see
https://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/roses.html and, in particular, Science Support at
SOC/STScI and Science Support at SSC/IPAC) to provide the community with
computational capabilities with high-bandwidth access to the Roman WFI data. This
platform will be available on a limited basis for preparatory work. Use of the platform
prior to launch will be valuable for PIT and WFS teams, e.g., to prototype software in
the Roman analysis environment. This will also help the SOC to ensure that the
platform can meet the community needs. Proposers whose output and deliverables
depend on use of this platform should consult with the Roman SOC before
submission to ensure that the intended uses and resources are feasible and available
when needed.
The SSC will host the data analysis environment where Coronagraph data will be
processed. CPP members will have access to this resource for algorithm testing.
To the extent practical/possible, successful PIT and WFS teams should work with the
Science Centers (e.g., through the activities highlighted in item B of Sections 2.2.1
and 2.3.1) to ensure that the data products produced by the operational pipelines best
meet community needs. For any significant processing of Roman data beyond that
performed by the Science Center operational pipelines that is needed to meet PIT or
WFS goals, proposers should assume the following:
● design, development, verification, validation, documentation, distribution and
maintenance of such software pipelines: labor costs for this should be included
in the proposal budget. Computing infrastructure costs to support these
activities (to the extent needed beyond the science platforms described above)
should also be included in the budget. The science drivers and/or design
choices for the pipelines should be described in the proposal Science,
Technical and Management section.
● operating these pipelines at scale during the post-launch operational mission
phase: Computing infrastructure costs to support these activities should not be
included in the budget. Instead, the proposal Data Management Section should
estimate the required resources, including, e.g., data storage, CPU hours,
network ingress/egress capacity or cost, or special processing needs such as
supercomputing, parallel processors, GPUs, etc. (Note: If these estimated
resources are sufficiently small to be readily available at the proposing
institution at no or minimal cost to NASA, it is sufficient to merely state that.)
Successful proposers should plan to work with the Roman Project and Science
Centers during their period of performance, and prior to launch, to identify an
appropriate post-launch strategy for operating such pipelines, subject to
availability of computing infrastructure resources both within and outside of the
Roman Project. Proposers should not construe this as latitude to increase the
scope of work supported by the Science Centers.

D.14-20
Alternatively, proposers may instead request a modest (in comparison to the overall
budget as outlined in §3.7) amount of funding for the purchase of computing
equipment or computing time from non-NASA providers of high-performance
computing systems and services.
Proposers interested in work connected with cosmological simulations should be
aware that there will likely be multiple groups working on this topic (both within and
external to this proposal call). Coordination of activities in this area will occur in a
Roman simulations working group after selection.
All computing resource requests will be evaluated under the cost reasonableness
criterion by the science peer review panels (see Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation).
3.10 Implementation Science Working Group
An Implementation Science Working Group (ISWG) will be formed from representatives
of the PITs and community collaborations, a number of members selected from
nominations from WFS teams, the Co-Chairs of the CPP, and at-large and ex officio
members appointed by NASA. The ex officio members will include, at a minimum,
several scientists from the Roman Project/Science Centers and the Roman Program
Scientist at NASA Headquarters. The Roman Senior Project Scientist will co-chair the
ISWG along with a member of the ISWG selected by the ISWG biannually. The ISWG
will work with the Roman Project in support of the development, integration, testing, and
operations of the observatory. The ISWG will be responsible for providing advice on the
science impact and value of activities and measurements conducted by the Roman
project in implementing the mission, including those activities based at the Roman
Science Centers.
After selection, each funded PIT and WFS team will be invited to submit a nomination
letter for one or more of its members to serve on the Implementation Science Working
Group.
4 Submission Content
4.1 Notice of Intent
To facilitate the early recruitment of a conflict-free review panel and ensure that
proposals are submitted to the appropriate category, a Notice of Intent (NOI) is ardently
requested, but not required, in advance of proposal submission to this program element.
No feedback will be provided in response to the NOI.
4.2 Request for Reviewer Names
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of up to
five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is or stand to benefit financially from the selection (or
otherwise) of the proposal. This information should be included in the program-specific
data question in the Notice of Intent, or emailed to the points of contact in Section 6.

D.14-21
4.3 Clarification of Proposal Content
Rules concerning the preparation and submission of proposals are provided in four
documents in the following priority order: this program element, which supersedes the
others, followed in descending order: D.1 Astrophysics Research Program Overview,
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, and the 2022 NASA Guidebook for
Proposers. For more information see Section I(g) “Order of Precedence” of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation. The current versions of ROSES-2022 documents should
be used since clarifications and amendments are made throughout the year.
As per the Guidebook for Proposers, designation of Co-Investigators with significant
roles as “Science PI” (for a person at the PI institution with a significant role in the
scientific direction of the work) or “Institutional PI” (for a person at a non-PI institution
with a significant leadership role at that institution) are available. This is provided in part
to permit the clear designation of important contributions from early career researchers,
The proposal document content follows Table 1 of ROSES-2022, except for the
Science, Technical, and Management section page limits, the optional enhancement to
WFS proposals for research activities to be conducted by undergraduate students, and
the inclusion plan. The contents are summarized below in Table D.14-1.
Table D.14-1 Proposal Components and Page Limits
Table of Contents Optional, 1 page
Science, Technical, and WFS regular and CPP: 8 pages
Management Section WFS large: 10 pages
PIT: 15 pages
Optional Enhancement for Proposing research activities to be conducted by
Student Research undergraduate students for WFS only: 2 pages, see
Section 2.2.2
References No page limit
Data Management Plan 2 pages
Inclusion Plan 2 pages
Biographical Sketches / 2 pages for PI (or science PI); 1 page each Co-I;
Curriculum Vitae (CVs) Collaborators optional
Table of Personnel and Work No page limit.
Effort
Current and Pending Support As necessary for PI and funded participants who
would devote ≥10% of their time in any given year
to the proposed work. No page limit
Statements of Commitment Co-Is seeking no NASA funding (either foreign or
and Letters of Resource U.S.-based) must include letters of endorsement
Support, and Endorsement from their government agency or funding /
sponsoring institution. Letters of Resource Support
are for a necessary facility or resource confirming
that it is available for the proposed use during the
proposed period. No page limit.
Redacted Budget No page limit

D.14-22
 Facilities and Equipment No page limit
4.4 Management Portion of Science-Technical-Management Section
WFS and CPP proposals do not need to describe the management structure for the
proposed personnel unless it is other than a simple PI-led hierarchically flat team
(although other structures are allowed and should be described). PIT proposals should
describe their management structure in accordance with the guidance in Section 2.3.2.
Aspects such as schedule, deliverables, and collaborations should still be described as
outlined in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, Section 2.1.3. Category-specific
guidance to set expectations for the interactions with the Roman project management
are provided below in Section 5.
4.5 Data Management Plan
An essential component of any funded activity resulting from this solicitation is the
ultimate dissemination of high-value data products and data analysis tools to the
astronomical community. Consequently, all proposals must include, following the
references for the Scientific, Technical, and Management section, a 2-page Data
Management Plan (DMP) that clearly describes the products of the investigation and
how those products will be made available to the community. See Section 1.2 of D.1,
The Astrophysics Research Program Overview.
Data from all Roman mission observations will be publicly available with no period of
limited access. All Roman-related code, models, tools, observations, and other data
produced as a result of awards that derive from this program element must be made
available to the public as soon as practicable, but not more than one year, following
acquisition or production. Any foreseen exception to this policy must be a) justified, b)
proposed in response to this program element, c) peer reviewed, and d) accepted by
NASA. All such products of selected investigations shall be documented, validated, and
calibrated in physical units that are usable by the scientific community at large. Selected
teams are expected to generate products (e.g., documentation, calibrations, algorithms,
data, software, etc.) consistent with the expectations described in Section 2. The Data
Management Plan should describe the schedule and methods for the management,
maintenance, and distribution/delivery of these products. Those who would develop
software should identify the open-source software license to be used. All products
should be provided with documentation that is sufficient to enable use by the intended
recipients/users.
Proposals submitted to the CPP category are permitted to plan not to generate unique
scientific data – that is, data aside from what the Coronagraph CPP Team is expected
to deliver to the Coronagraph Instrument team or to the Roman Project. If this is the
case, such proposals may satisfy the requirement for a data management plan by
simply noting this in the separate 2-page DMP section of the proposal.
Teams should consult Section II(c) of ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and the
DMP Frequently Asked Questions Page
(https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/dmp-faq-roses). The details required in
the DMP will naturally vary with the proposal category. Smaller programs such as
Regular WFS and CPP proposals may not require extensive plans and may choose to

D.14-23
provide data via supplementary materials with the journals. For PIT proposals, the DMP
should be explicit on how they will work with the SOC and/or SSC, and the timeline on
which data and software would be released. PIT proposals will be evaluated on the
utility of their data and software releases to the broad scientific community.
4.6 Inclusion Plan
NASA is committed to a culture of diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility. Aligning
with NASA’s core value of inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate’s Science Plan
(see Strategy 4.1 in SMD Science Plan), SMD seeks to increase the diversity of thought
and backgrounds represented across the entire SMD portfolio through a more inclusive
and accessible environment.
To advance NASA’s core value and SMD’s plans, an Inclusion Plan, not to exceed two
pages (plus additional pages for references, as necessary) immediately following the
Data Management Plan, is required for all proposals.
Through the addition of Inclusion Plans, NASA seeks to improve equity in STEM by
asking proposers to consider ways to involve and empower historically underserved and
underrepresented groups in STEM.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to:
• identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for the
proposed investigation; 
• address ways in which the investigation team will attenuate or reduce these
barriers to create and sustain such an environment;
• discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will empower those from
historically underrepresented and underserved groups to be leaders and full
participants within an inclusionary environment where all voices are heard;
• discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will develop a diverse and
inclusive scientific workforce and clearly define roles and responsibilities for all
team members towards pursuing those goals; and
• consider the involvement of organizations and institutions that support and serve
under-represented groups including, but not limited to, Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and Other
Minority Universities.
A resource that some proposers may find useful in this regard is NASA’s Minority
Serving Institutions (MSI) Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
For the assessment of the Inclusion Plan, a peer review panel that may have a
combination of science discipline experts, social scientists, and/or experts on issues
surrounding diversity, inclusion, and equity, will be asked the following questions:
a. Does the Inclusion Plan provide adequate processes and goals for creating a positive
and inclusive working environment for the investigation team? Does the Inclusion
Plan include ways in which this positive and inclusive working environment will be
maintained? For instance, are the Plan’s metrics of success and associated
assessment plans adequate for gauging progress towards creating and sustaining
the inclusive environment? Does the Inclusion Plan demonstrate awareness of

D.14-24
 systemic barriers and ideas for removing these to create inclusive working
environments?
b. Does the Inclusion Plan adequately describe the contribution of the proposed
investigation to the training and development of a diverse and inclusive team? Does
the Inclusion Plan provide an adequate plan for achieving the identified contribution?
Is the Plan likely to be successful in realizing the identified contribution? 
c. Do the efforts in the Inclusion Plan have clearly stated goals, actions to achieve those
goals, and metrics for measuring progress during the award period?
Please note that an Inclusion Plan is not the same as public engagement efforts nor is it
the same as NSF’s Broader Impacts statement. An Inclusion Plan that describes such
efforts alone will be considered inadequate for the purposes of this assessment. If
funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, it should be included and justified in
the budget. 
Note that while the assessment of the Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival
rating for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals, funding will be
released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory Inclusion Plan is approved by
the selection official. If funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, that request
for funding should be clearly identified and justified in the budget as a separate budget
element so it can be assessed. Reviewers and proposers will be invited to provide
comments and suggestions to improve the Inclusion Plan aspect of this research
program after the review is completed. 
4.7 Non-Anonymous Proposal Review
Proposals in response to this program element will not be evaluated using the dual
anonymous peer review (DAPR) process, which has become more common recently.
While the overall purpose and goals of DAPR are eminently valuable, the unique nature
of this program element is better suited to a non-anonymized approach, as many of the
teams selected (cf. PIT and CPP timelines shown in Section 3.6) are expected to work
over a long term in close coordination with the Roman Project, Coronagraph team, and
Science Centers to enable outcomes of significant and lasting value to the astronomical
community. However, it is NASA’s intent that the review and selection still incorporate
many of the ideals of DAPR.
The overarching objective of the peer review is to ensure that the review of proposals is
performed in an equitable and fair manner. For proposals submitted under this element,
review panels will be instructed to evaluate each proposal first and foremost on its
scientific merit without taking into account the proposing team qualifications, and
separately and secondarily on the overall team qualifications for carrying out the
proposed work. The scientific merit shall be based solely on the content of what is
proposed, not the team members, their prior experience, or their institutional
capabilities. Merit includes the unique requirements and criteria listed in Sections 2.3
and 2.3.2 for PIT proposals, and Section 2.4.3 for CPP proposals. The panel will
separately assess the qualifications of the team to verify that the team capabilities
required to execute the proposed science investigation are commensurate with the
combination of team members, facilities, and planned structures in place to promote
overall success. As an example, the PI on a PIT proposal need not be experienced in

D.14-25
providing significant infrastructural tools for a space mission, provided that the requisite
expertise be present among the team members and that an appropriate degree of
mentorship from someone with such experience be available.
5 Roman Research Management Process
Selected projects will be managed as research projects, not space flight projects.
However, in order to meet Roman’s objectives for prominent survey science and
coronagraph technology development, there will be some coordination and oversight by
the Roman Project. To set expectations, this management is briefly described below.
5.1 Wide Field Science Investigation Management
Awards to non-governmental organizations in the WFS category will be grants and
managed as research projects, but they will be subject to expectations appropriate to
research affiliated with a strategic NASA mission. One such expectation is that projects
should plan for a light-touch oversight that will include regular reporting on progress. At
the end of each project year, the PI will submit an annual report, with the final report
serving to document project closeout. These reports shall be designed to make public
as much of the team’s work as would be useful to the astronomical community.
Selected WFS teams are expected to work in partnership with the Roman Science
Centers to ensure that the simulations, tools, data, or other products resulting from each
team’s work can be well integrated into the project and made available to the
community, as described in Section 2.1.2 item B.
5.2 Project Infrastructure Team Management
Due to their nature as important infrastructural elements for capitalizing on Roman’s
capabilities for science, the PIT investigations are expected to be responsive to more
than typical levels of oversight and stewardship. Proposals must therefore include an
explicit table of deliverables with a brief description of each and timeline for expected
completion of each. This shall be provided within the 15-page Science/Technical/
Management section of the proposal.
In addition to the Table of Deliverables, at the end of each project year, the PI will
submit an annual report. These reports shall be designed to make public as much of the
team’s work as would be useful to the astronomical community. For selected PIT
investigations, at six months prior to completion of the term of award, the PI will be
invited to submit a continuation plan of work including cost and schedule. The Roman
Project will provide guidance on the scope and term of the plan at least three months
prior to this. The evaluation of the plan of work will then serve in the consideration of
extending the investigation period of performance.
It is anticipated that awards to non-governmental organizations will be in the form of
cooperative agreements (as opposed to grants) since the Roman Project will be
substantially involved after selection and intends to maintain an essential degree of
oversight of the selected project(s) throughout the project lifecycle. For the purposes of
this category, proposers should anticipate a close partnership with Roman personnel;
see Section 2.3.1. Each selected PIT awardee will be required to submit quarterly
progress reports, to participate regularly in Roman telecons, and sporadically to provide
more in-depth presentations on their work.

D.14-26
5.3 Community Participation Program Management
Awards to non-governmental organizations resulting from selected CPP proposals will
be grants and managed as research projects, but with expectations appropriate to
shared-risk work on a NASA technology demonstration. The entire set of selected
investigators, collectively referred to as the “CPP Team”, is expected to work with the
Coronagraph Instrument Project and the Science Centers cohesively as a single entity,
rather than a collection of individual teams.
The Coronagraph Instrument Technologist will co-chair the Coronagraph CPP, together
with a community co-Chair drawn from the CPP Team on a rotating appointment. The
role of the co-chairs consists of setting and communicating CPP Team priorities,
coordinating logistics of CPP Team meetings and other work, assisting with community
communication and advocacy, and may grow as Roman approaches launch.
A CPP “Core Team” will advise the co-chairs and will be formed from the Principal
Investigators (PIs) or Co-Investigators of each selected proposal, along with other ex
officio members appointed by NASA. To keep the Core Team size manageable, NASA
anticipates appointing approximately six representatives from the selected proposals.
The ex officio members will include, at a minimum, scientists from the Roman
Coronagraph Instrument Project Team and Science Centers and a representative from
each foreign organization partnering on the Coronagraph. The Core Team and co-
chairs will develop and enforce a team code of conduct as well as “rules of the road” for
decision-making, publications, and other critical team activities.
To ensure that the Coronagraph is operated in a fashion that supports the needs of the
large strategic mission prioritized by the 2020 Decadal Survey, the Coronagraph
Instrument Technologist will also be the liaison between the CPP and the Technology
Strategy Team being created for that mission.
At the end of each project year, each PI will submit a brief annual report outlining their
contribution to the Coronagraph CPP Team, with the final report serving to document
project closeout. Contingent on the availability of funds, progress of the project, and
continued relevance to the Roman Coronagraph, NASA anticipates continuing each
CPP award for the full three-year term. At least six months prior to completion of the
period of performance, the PI will submit a continuation plan of work including cost and
schedule to cover the period through Coronagraph operations and analysis. Guidance
will be provided on the scope and term of the plan at least three months prior to this.
The evaluation of the plan of work will then serve in the consideration of extending the
grant period of performance.
6 Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for See Section 3.7
new awards
Number of new awards pending See Section 3.7
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards Variable; see Section 1

D.14-27
Mechanism of Award
Due date for Notice of Intent to
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science-Technical-Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Programmatic point of contact
concerning this program element
For PITs, awards should be anticipated as
cooperative agreements; CPP and WFS
should be anticipated as grants
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
6 months after proposal due date
15 pp for PIT proposals; 8 pp for CPP and
WFS regular proposals; 10 pp for WFS large.
see Table D.14-1 and Table 1 of ROSES-22
This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
See D.1 The Astrophysics Research Program
Overview and Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/(help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ROMAN
Dominic Benford
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate, NASA
Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-1261
Email: Dominic.Benford@nasa.gov
D.14-28
Technical questions concerning
this program element may be
directed to the Roman Senior
Project Scientist
Julie McEnery
Astrophysics Science Division
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001
Telephone: (301) 286-1632
Email: julie.e.mcenery@nasa.gov
D.14-29
D.15 LISA PREPARATORY SCIENCE
NOTICE: January 12, 2023. The opportunity to submit a mandatory
Notice of Intent (NOI) has been reopened. Mandatory NOIs must be
submitted by January 20, 2023. The proposal due date remains
unchanged at March 16, 2023.
October 5, 2022. The Inclusion Plan language in Section 2.5 has been
updated. This correction makes the Inclusion Plan language uniform
and consistent across Appendix D. Changes are not tracked and the
due dates are unchanged.
This program requires submission of an NOI, see Section 2.4.
Proposals that are not preceded by the mandatory NOI will be returned
without review. No feedback will be provided in response to the NOI.
Pls must provide the names of their Co-investigators and
collaborators on the NOI for review planning purposes.
This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan Pilot
Program, see Section 2.5. This Inclusion Plan will not be part of the
adjectival ratings or selection recommendations for this opportunity.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview
NASA is partnering with the European Space Agency (ESA) on the ESA-led Laser
Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) gravitational wave observatory planned for launch
in the early 2030s. LISA will detect gravitational waves in the milli-Hz band, opening a
new window to study the Universe. LISA will measure gravitational radiation from a
variety of astrophysical sources including the mergers of massive black holes, the
capture of stellar-remnant black holes by galactic center black holes, close compact
binaries in our own galaxy, and other potential sources. More information about the
LISA mission can be found at https://lisa.nasa.gov.
NASA's specific contributions to LISA are the subject of ongoing discussions with ESA,
but are expected to include elements of the instrument, elements of the spacecraft,
and aspects of science data analysis and science interpretation, including potential
Guest Investigator activities. While the development of hardware and ground-segment
infrastructure is supported by NASA through the NASA LISA Study Office (NLSO) at
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, this ROSES element concerns the support of
U.S.-based investigators for developing tools and techniques for the analysis and
interpretation of LISA data.
1.2 Program Objectives
The LISA Preparatory Science (LPS) program has been created to provide support for
U.S. investigators to conduct activities that contribute to furthering the eventual
science yield of LISA. It is not intended as a vehicle for funding specific U.S.
contributions to the LISA instrument or science ground segment, or to develop
concepts for other missions outside of LISA. Proposals to the LPS program may
request support to:

D.15-1
 • Perform high-fidelity simulations of the expected waveforms for LISA sources
and assessing their impact on LISA's science return;
• Develop data analysis and statistical techniques useful for the extraction of
scientific measurements from LISA data (e.g., parameter estimators, etc.);
• Refine and expand on LISA's capabilities to conduct specific astrophysical
investigations and evaluate LISA’s potential contributions in the context of
the broader astrophysical landscape;
• Conduct astrophysics investigations that demonstrably prepare for the
analysis and interpretation of the LISA data.
Note that the NLSO is responsible for NASA's direct contributions to both the
instrument and science ground segment. More information on the current activities of
the NLSO can be found at https://lisa.nasa.gov/teamActivities.html. Proposers must
ensure that the proposed investigations do not duplicate these activities. Proposals
also must not duplicate previously funded LPS projects; for a list and brief description
of prior LPS projects see https://lisa.nasa.gov/LPSprogram.html.
Proposals to the LPS program may not:
• Address topics that are predominantly theoretical in nature. Such proposals
may be directed to the mission-specific programs or the Astrophysics
Theory Program (ATP) described in Program Element D.4 of ROSES-
2021;
• Consist primarily of data reduction or analysis of archival data other than that
in direct support of LISA-centric investigations. Such proposals may be
directed, as appropriate, to the mission-specific programs or the
Astrophysics Data Analysis Program (ADAP) described in Program Element
D.2 of ROSES-2022;
• Consist primarily of new astronomical observations. Such proposals may
be directed to the mission-specific Guest Observer programs;
• Propose to develop technologies or experimental concepts for LISA;
• Request support for organizing and/or hosting scientific meetings. Such
proposals may be directed to the Topical Workshops, Symposia, and
Conferences (TWSC) program described in Program Element F.2 of
ROSES-2022; or
• Request support for substantial computing facilities or resources.
1.3 Availability of High-End Computational Resources
Those investigators whose research requires high-performance computing should refer
to the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, Section I(d), "NASA-provided High-End
Computing Resources." This section describes the opportunity for the successful
procedure that proposers must follow to apply for computing time on either of two NASA
computing facilities at the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Computational and
Information Sciences and Technology Office or at the Ames Research Center’s
Advanced Supercomputing Division.

D.15-2
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 Eligibility
All U.S. Organizations are eligible to receive funding via this program element.
Participants from non-U.S. institutions are eligible on a no-exchange-of-funds basis.
Proposals from U.S. organizations with participants affiliated with non-U.S. institutions
who have a significant role on a proposal must include a letter from their government
agency or funding/sponsoring institution in their country indicating that they have the
support to allocate the time promised to carry out the project.
One may not be funded twice for the same work. The LPS program is not intended to
fund activities that should be supported by the NLSO. Those who will already be
receiving NASA funding for LISA-related activities during the proposed period of
performance (i.e., from the NASA LISA Study Office for the LISA Core Teams), may not
participate on proposals submitted to this solicitation as funded or unfunded PIs or Co-
Is, but may be collaborators. Questions regarding eligibility may be directed to the point
of contact in Section 4.
2.2 Proposal Guidelines
Proposals must have a clear, single focus. All individuals participating in the proposed
investigation should be included as Co-Investigators or Collaborators.
Investigators may submit more than one proposal if the research program of each
proposal is significantly distinct and if the implied work does not over commit the
personnel involved. The proposals must state clearly what the overlap is in the
proposed work and why funding of both proposals is warranted and desirable.
Proposers of previously funded LPS projects must provide a status report on the
funded activity and explain the relationship of the newly proposed project to the
previously funded one. If the proposed project overlaps with a previous LPS proposal,
the proposers must provide a justification of why additional funding and time is
needed.
NASA does not anticipate awarding contracts in response to proposals submitted to this
program element because it would not be appropriate for the nature of the work
solicited.
Proposals must address items above. Any questions may be addressed to the point-of-
contact identified in Section 4 at least two weeks before the proposal due date. The
anonymized questions and the answers will be collected by the Program Officer and
posted on the NSPIRES page for this program element under "Other documents".
2.3 Additional Requirements
In addition to the default required elements (as outlined in Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation), proposals for this program element must include the following
in the Scientific/Technical/Management section:
• A brief description of how the goals of the proposed project relate and enhance
the LISA science goals;

D.15-3
 • A description of how the proposed project complements and augments other
currently funded LISA science projects of the PI and CoIs, if any;
• A description of how the proposed project complements and/or augments
activities of the NASA LISA Study Office and prior funded LPS investigations, if
applicable, see https://lisa.nasa.gov/.
2.4 Mandatory Notice of Intent
To facilitate the early recruitment of a conflict-free review panel, a Notice of Intent (NOI)
to propose is required for all submissions to this Program Element. Proposals that are
not preceded by an NOI will be returned without review. The proposers are strongly
encouraged to finalize their team's composition before submitting the NOIs. The NOIs
will be used to recruit non-conflicted reviewers, and any later changes to the Team
composition would hinder this effort. Proposers are strongly encouraged to list the
names of all their Co-Investigators and Collaborators on the NOI.
The period of performance of investigations for this research element is restricted to a
maximum of three (3) years. Projects of three-year duration must be well justified,
shorter duration projects are allowed.
2.5 Inclusion Plan [Text replaced October 5, 2022]
NASA is committed to a culture of diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility. Aligning
with NASA’s core value of inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate’s Science Plan
(see Strategy 4.1 in SMD Science Plan), SMD seeks to increase the diversity of thought
and backgrounds represented across the entire SMD portfolio through a more inclusive
and accessible environment.
To advance NASA’s core value and SMD’s plans, an Inclusion Plan, not to exceed two
pages (plus additional pages for references, as necessary) immediately following the
Data Management Plan, is required for all proposals.
Through the addition of Inclusion Plans, NASA seeks to improve equity in STEM by
asking proposers to consider ways to involve and empower historically underserved and
underrepresented groups in STEM.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to:
• identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for the
proposed investigation; 
• address ways in which the investigation team will attenuate or reduce these
barriers to create and sustain such an environment;
• discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will empower those from
historically underrepresented and underserved groups to be leaders and full
participants within an inclusionary environment where all voices are heard;
• discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will develop a diverse and
inclusive scientific workforce and clearly define roles and responsibilities for all
team members towards pursuing those goals; and
• consider the involvement of organizations and institutions that support and serve
under-represented groups including, but not limited to, Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and Other
Minority Universities.

D.15-4
A resource that some proposers may find useful in this regard is NASA’s Minority
Serving Institutions (MSI) Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
For the assessment of the Inclusion Plan, a peer review panel that may have a
combination of science discipline experts, social scientists, and/or experts on issues
surrounding diversity, inclusion, and equity, will be asked the following questions:
a. Does the Inclusion Plan provide adequate processes and goals for creating a positive
and inclusive working environment for the investigation team? Does the Inclusion
Plan include ways in which this positive and inclusive working environment will be
maintained? For instance, are the Plan’s metrics of success and associated
assessment plans adequate for gauging progress towards creating and sustaining
the inclusive environment? Does the Inclusion Plan demonstrate awareness of
systemic barriers and ideas for removing these to create inclusive working
environments?
b. Does the Inclusion Plan adequately describe the contribution of the proposed
investigation to the training and development of a diverse and inclusive team? Does
the Inclusion Plan provide an adequate plan for achieving the identified contribution?
Is the Plan likely to be successful in realizing the identified contribution? 
c. Do the efforts in the Inclusion Plan have clearly stated goals, actions to achieve those
goals, and metrics for measuring progress during the award period?
Please note that an Inclusion Plan is not the same as public engagement efforts nor is it
the same as NSF’s Broader Impacts statement. An Inclusion Plan that describes such
efforts alone will be considered inadequate for the purposes of this assessment. If
funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, it should be included and justified in
the budget. 
Note that while the assessment of the Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival
rating for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals, funding will be
released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory Inclusion Plan is approved by
the selection official. If funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, that request
for funding should be clearly identified and justified in the budget as a separate budget
element so it can be assessed. Reviewers and proposers will be invited to provide
comments and suggestions to improve the Inclusion Plan aspect of this research
program after the review is completed.
3. Proposal Evaluation and Awards
The default evaluation process is described in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation and the three basic criteria, defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers, are Relevance, Merit, and Cost. For this program element the evaluation
of Merit will include:
a. How well the investigation goals relate to or advance the LISA science requirements,
as outlined in the LISA mission proposal (available at
https://lisa.nasa.gov/documentsReference.html);
b. The merit of a plan for disseminating the results of the research project to the
broader community;
c. If development of analysis tools is being proposed, the availability and usefulness of
the tools developed under the award for the astronomy and astrophysical scientific

D.15-5
 community at large for engaging in LISA science, and the timeline for their release.
Note that software, whether a stand-alone program, an enhancement to existing code,
or a module that interfaces with existing codes, created as part of an LPS award,
should be made publicly available when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when
there is scientific utility in doing so.
In addition, as part of the evaluation of relevance, the peer review panel will assess:
d. The extent to which the proposed project overlaps or duplicates LISA efforts ongoing
in the NASA LISA Study Office or prior funded LPS investigations as described at
https://lisa.nasa.gov/teamActivities.html;
e. The extent to which the proposed project overlaps or duplicates funded LPS
projects, past or ongoing, as listed at https://lisa.nasa.gov/LPSprogram.html.
For items d) and e), please contact thomas.hams-1@nasa.gov when in doubt.
4. Reporting
For each year of the investigation period, the PI shall prepare a standard report
according to NASA guidelines (https://sara.nasa.gov), and submit it at least 60 days
before the anniversary of the start date. The title and abstract of the funded LPS
proposal, at a minimum, will be made available on https://lisa.nasa.gov.
NASA HQ may organize a special session for LISA Preparatory Science at a future
meeting or science conference. If such a session is organized, the PIs or designated
team members of the selected proposals shall give an oral or poster presentation with
the results of their LPS projects. Proposers should plan for at least one domestic travel
in their proposed budgets to attend a future NASA HQ organized LISA Preparatory
Science special session.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for
~$1M
first year of new awards
Number of new awards pending
~4-6
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years; shorter-term proposals are encouraged
Due date for mandatory Notice See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
of Intent to propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of
October 1, 2023
investigation
Page limit for the central 15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES and the NASA
Science-Technical-Management Guidebook for Proposers.
section of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.

D.15-6
General information and
overview of this solicitation
Detailed instructions for the
preparation and submission of
proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See D.1 The Astrophysics Research Program
Overview and Table 1 of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-LPS
Thomas Hams
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-5162
Email: thomas.hams-1@nasa.gov
D.15-7
D.16 ASTROPHYSICS DECADAL SURVEY PRECURSOR SCIENCE
NOTICE: Amended December 14, 2022. This amendment releases the
final text and due dates for this program element, which was TBD.
Mandatory NOIs are due January 20, 2023, and proposals are due
March 24, 2023. The Data Management Plan is part of the 15-page
S/T/M section of the proposal, see Section 2.6. This program will
evaluate proposals using dual-anonymous peer review, see Section
2.7. This program element is participating in the Inclusion Plan
Program, see Section 2.8. The evaluation of the Inclusion Plan will not
be part of the adjectival ratings nor selection recommendations for
this opportunity.
Science investigations with the primary goal of advancing Extreme
Precision Radial Velocity measurement precisions to the ~1 cm/s level
required to detect potentially habitable, Earth-mass exoplanets
orbiting solar type stars are not solicited here. Those investigations
will be solicited separately under ROSES-2022 program element D.18
Extreme Precision Radial Velocity Foundation Science (EPRV22).
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview
The Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor Science (ADSPS) program supports
research in areas related to the recommendations from the National Academy of
Science and Engineering report, "Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and
Astrophysics for the 2020s" (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/26141/pathways-to-discovery-
in-astronomy-and-astrophysics-for-the-2020s) for 1) a large Infrared/Optical/Ultraviolet
space mission to search for biosignatures from nearby exoplanets and to perform
transformative astrophysics investigations, 2) a large Far Infrared mission, and 3) a
large X-ray mission. Research proposals to ADSPS should describe how scientific
progress in the areas being investigated will either reduce the design and development
risk for one or more of these future large missions or help to define the requirements
such missions must meet to enable transformative discoveries. Proposals to ADSPS will
be evaluated using the dual-anonymous peer review process.
1.2 Scope
The emphasis of this program element is on science investigations that will reduce
future Great Observatory mission risk and inform mission designs and trades when
those activities begin. All three Great Observatory concepts identified in the Astro2020
Decadal Survey Report are in the scope of this activity.
Precursor science is distinguished from preparatory science, which refers to science
that may inform the use of a new observatory (but which does not to affect the mission
architecture). In planning for the Future Great Observatories that were recommended by
the Astro2020/Pathways Decadal Survey, precursor science is more urgent to
accomplish than preparatory science. The precursor science investigations solicited by
this program element may include, but are not limited to, theoretical and computational

D.16-1
studies, laboratory astrophysics investigations, archival research, and observational
investigations.
Proposers to this program element are encouraged to read the NASA Science Plan, the
Astrophysics Roadmap (available at
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/documents/astrophysics-roadmap); the report of
the Astro2020 Decadal survey, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics
for the 2020s,(available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/26141/pathways-to-discovery-
in-astronomy-and-astrophysics-for-the-2020s); and the reports from the Precursor
Science Workshops including the science gaps worksheets (available at
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/exep/astro2020-precursor-sciws2-roses-call/ ) to gauge the
relevance of their research to the closing of community-identified science gaps
important for future great observatory definition. Awards resulting from this call may be
for up to three years in duration.
Science investigations with the primary goal of advancing Extreme Precision Radial
Velocity measurement precisions to the ~1 cm/s level required to detect potentially
habitable, Earth-mass exoplanets orbiting solar type stars are not solicited by this
program element. Such investigations will be solicited separately under ROSES-2022
program element D.18 Extreme Precision Radial Velocity Foundation Science
(EPRV22). EPRV observations undertaken with the primary goal of conducting a
census or characterizing plausible target systems for the large
Infrared/Optical/Ultraviolet space mission (Precursor Science Gap #2) are allowed
under this program element.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 General Information
The table in Section 3 provides the amount of Year-1 funding and the number of
investigations expected to be selected for this element. If the budget allows, it is
expected that NASA will release this call a second time in future years with similar
objectives and selections.
2.2 Student and Early Career Participation
The participation of graduate students and early career scientists is strongly
encouraged. In such cases, brief details of the educational goals and training of the
participants as well as their role in the investigation should be included in the proposal.
Specific factors that will be considered when evaluating a proposal’s intrinsic merit
include the degree to which it advances the readiness of early-career researchers or
graduate students to assume roles in advancing NASA’s strategic objectives.
2.3 Request for reviewer names
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of up to
five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts must not be from the
institutions of the PI or Co-Is or stand to benefit financially from the selection (or
otherwise) of the proposal. This information should be included in the program specific
data question on the NSPIRES cover pages associated with the mandatory Notice of

D.16-2
Intent (NOI) or emailed by the NOI due date to the Program Officer identified in the
summary table of key information (Section 3).
2.4 Proposal Submission Requirement: Mandatory NOIs
To facilitate the early recruitment of a conflict-free review panel and ensure that
proposals are submitted to the appropriate category, an NOI must be submitted by the
due date given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES. Proposals that are not preceded by an on-
time NOI will be returned without review. No feedback will be provided in response to
the NOI.
The summary text submitted with the NOI must be anonymous, following the Dual
Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR) rules explained in Section 2.7
2.4.1 Changes to the team after NOI Submission
After NOI submission, to add funded investigators proposers must inform the point of
contact identified in the summary table of key information (Section 3) and cc
sara@nasa.gov at least two weeks in advance of the proposal due date. Additions of
funded investigators within two weeks of the proposal deadline require explicit
permission from the NASA point of contact. Submission of an NOI does not obligate the
proposer to submit a full proposal later.
The PI role may be reassigned between NOI and proposal, but only to Co-Is who were
listed on the NOI.
2.5 Clarifications of Proposal Content and Order of Precedence
The instructions in this program element supersede those elsewhere in ROSES and the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers (hereinafter “the Guidebook”). For example, the Data
Management Plan (DMP) is to be included in the 15-page Scientific/Technical/
Management (S/T/M) section of the proposal, not in a separate 2-page section as is the
default in the ROSES-22 Summary of Solicitation and D.1 the Astrophysics Research
Program Overview.
Consistent with the definitions of team member roles in the Guidebook, if unfunded
team members (including, but not limited to, those at foreign institutions) are to provide
critical portions of the investigation (required for it to be successful), then those
individuals must be listed as Co-Investigators. However, as another example of how the
requirements here supersede the Guidebook, all unfunded Co-Is, must provide a letter
from an appropriate representative of their institution or funding Agency attesting to the
necessary institutional or other Agency support, not just those affiliated with foreign
organizations as is indicated by the Guidebook.
Finally, an example of a default rule that applies to all of ROSES but supersedes the
Guidebook is the redaction of salary, fringe and overhead from peer reviewed
proposals, see Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
2.6 Data Management Plan
All proposals to this element require a Data Management Plan (DMP) or an explanation
of why one is not necessary given the nature of the work proposed (e.g., hardware
development investigations). The DMP will be evaluated as part of the Intrinsic Merit of

D.16-3
the proposal and must be included as part of the 15 pages of the S/T/M section of the
proposal (see below).
The DMP must cover any data needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-
reviewed publications, particularly data underlying figures, maps, and tables. It also
needs to cover any other data and software that would enable future research or the
replication/reproduction of published results.
"Data" does not include preliminary and other unpublished data, data in prepublication
documents, private communications, or certain other types of information that have
been specifically exempted from the DMP requirement.
In the case of a project that would produce no data, as defined above, or only data
specifically exempted, the DMP must state that no data preservation or data sharing is
needed and explain why. In a case where no appropriate archive exists for a particular
data set, the DMP should discuss alternative methods for making the data publicly
available.
The DMP must contain the following elements, as appropriate to the project, in
adequate detail for review:
• A description of data types, volume, formats, and (where relevant) standards;
• A description of the schedule for data archiving and sharing;
• A description of the intended repositories for archived data, including
mechanisms for public access and distribution;
• A discussion of how the plan enables long-term preservation of data;
• A discussion of roles and responsibilities of team members in accomplishing the
DMP. If funds are required for data management activities, these should be
covered in the normal budget and budget justification sections of the proposal.
DMPs will be reviewed as part of the overall NASA research proposal review process.
Proposals that do not address each of these items in their DMP, even if determined to
be selected or selectable for funding, may not be funded. Funded researchers, research
institutions, and NASA centers are responsible for ensuring and demonstrating
compliance with the DMPs approved as part of their awards. Awardees who do not fulfill
the intent of their DMPs may have continuing funds withheld and this may be
considered in the evaluation of future proposals.
DMP is part of the page limited S/T/M section of the proposal.
Software, whether a stand-alone program, an enhancement to existing code, or a
module that interfaces with existing codes, created as part of a ROSES award, should
be made publicly available when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when there is
scientific utility in doing so. Stand-alone code that is not straightforward to implement, or
whose utility is significantly outweighed by the costs to share it, is not expected to be
made available. SMD expects that the source code, with associated documentation
sufficient to enable use of the code, will be made publicly available as Open-Source
Software (OSS) under an appropriately permissive license (e.g., Apache-2, BSD-3-
Clause, GPL). This includes all software developed with SMD funding used in the
production of data products, as well as software developed to discover, access,
visualize, and transform NASA data. OSS is defined as software that can be accessed,

D.16-4
used, modified, and shared by anyone. Awardees will not be required to continue
maintenance of their software beyond the submission of the software to an appropriate
repository.
The DMP should mention how the proposers would satisfy the requirement to make
manuscript versions of peer reviewed publications available. For more details and
definitions about what scientific information should be shared, see Section II.c of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and the DMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for
ROSES.
2.7 Specific Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Proposals
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review (DAPR) process in which not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the
reviewers, the reviewers are not told the identity of the proposers until after the
evaluation of the aspects of the proposal that don’t include the identity of the proposers
(see below). The objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to minimize bias in the
evaluation of the merit of a proposal.
Since NOI summaries may be shared with reviewers as part of the review assignment
process, NOIs must also be Anonymous.
Proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element
that explains how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will be partly hidden for the peer reviewers. The Proposal Summary must
be anonymized but all other sections of the NSPIRES cover page should be completed
as normal and NSPIRES will hide the identifying information from the reviewers. The
proposal document must be anonymized, and proposers must upload a separate
"Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document, that contains all of the
personally (and organizational) identifying information.
Review panels will be instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals without taking
into account the qualifications and capabilities of the proposers. After the evaluation of
the aspects of the proposal that don’t require the identity of the proposers has been
finalized for all proposals, panelists will be provided with the "Expertise and Resources
Not Anonymized" documents for a subset of proposals that scored highly (depending on
the grades and projected selection rates). The panel will then assess the qualifications
and capabilities of the team for these proposals and provide comments to NASA.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below.

D.16-5
 Table D.16-1. A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals
(reproduced from the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document).
Item Requirement
Proposal Document In addition to anonymizing the content, ensure that any PDF
PDF file bookmarks are anonymous and the document properties do
not reveal names of author or organization.
Science-Technical- The S/T/M section must be anonymized. Omit all names of
Management (S/T/M) team members and names of their organizations.
section of proposal
Data Management DMP must be anonymized and included in the 15-page S/T/M
Plan section.
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Inclusion Plan Anonymized 2-page section in the main proposal document,
see Section 2.8
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Sketches separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Table of Personnel Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
and Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion
in the separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Current and Pending Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Support separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Letters or Statements All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in
Equipment the separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research
in an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions
of facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with
facilities are to be included in the separate "Expertise and
Resources Not Anonymized" document.

D.16-6
 Separate "Expertise Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
and Resources Not Attachment Type = "Expertise and Resources Not
Anonymized" Anonymized". This document provides a list of all team
document members, their roles, institutional affiliations, expertise, and
contributions to the work. The document should also discuss
any specific resources that are key to completing the
proposed work, as well as a summary of work effort.
Statements of Current and Pending Support must also be
included.
Total Budget Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
Attachment Type = Total Budget. The mandatory total budget
file is full and complete with all costs for those at U.S.
organizations, including those at government laboratories. It is
not redacted or anonymized.
High-End Computing Submit optional not-anonymized PDF HEC form as
(HEC) request attachment type "Optional HEC request" in NSPIRES. The
S/T/M section in the main proposal must state that a HEC
request is included and must provide an outline of the
computing resources required in an anonymized fashion.

2.8 Inclusion Plan

NASA is committed to a culture of diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility. Aligning
with NASA’s core value of inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate’s Science Plan
(see Strategy 4.1 in SMD Science Plan), SMD seeks to increase the diversity of thought
and backgrounds represented across the entire SMD portfolio through a more inclusive
and accessible environment.
To advance NASA’s core value and SMD’s plans, an Inclusion Plan, not to exceed two
pages (plus additional pages for references, as necessary) immediately following the
references and citations section of the proposal document, is required for all
proposals. The inclusion plan is not part of the 15-page S/T/M section of the proposal,
but it is in the main anonymized proposal document, so the inclusion plan must be
anonymized.
Through the addition of Inclusion Plans, NASA seeks to improve equity in STEM by
asking proposers to consider ways to involve and empower historically underserved and
underrepresented groups in STEM.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to:
• identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment for the
proposed investigation; 
• address ways in which the investigation team will attenuate or reduce these
barriers to create and sustain such an environment;
• discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will empower those from
historically underrepresented and underserved groups to be leaders and full
participants within an inclusionary environment where all voices are heard;

D.16-7
 • discuss ways in which the proposed investigation will develop a diverse and
inclusive scientific workforce and clearly define roles and responsibilities for all
team members towards pursuing those goals; and
• consider the involvement of organizations and institutions that support and serve
under-represented groups including, but not limited to, Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and Other
Minority Universities.
A resource that some proposers may find useful in this regard is NASA’s Minority
Serving Institutions (MSI) Exchange at https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/.
For the assessment of the Inclusion Plan, a peer review panel that may have a
combination of science discipline experts, social scientists, and/or experts on issues
surrounding diversity, inclusion, and equity, will be asked the following questions:
a. Does the Inclusion Plan provide adequate processes and goals for creating a positive
and inclusive working environment for the investigation team? Does the Inclusion
Plan include ways in which this positive and inclusive working environment will be
maintained? For instance, are the Plan’s metrics of success and associated
assessment plans adequate for gauging progress towards creating and sustaining
the inclusive environment? Does the Inclusion Plan demonstrate awareness of
systemic barriers and ideas for removing these to create inclusive working
environments?
b. Does the Inclusion Plan adequately describe the contribution of the proposed
investigation to the training and development of a diverse and inclusive team? Does
the Inclusion Plan provide an adequate plan for achieving the identified contribution?
Is the Plan likely to be successful in realizing the identified contribution? 
c. Do the efforts in the Inclusion Plan have clearly stated goals, actions to achieve those
goals, and metrics for measuring progress during the award period?
Please note that an Inclusion Plan is not the same as public engagement efforts nor is it
the same as NSF’s Broader Impacts statement. An Inclusion Plan that describes such
efforts alone will be considered inadequate for the purposes of this assessment. If
funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, it should be included and justified in
the budget. 
Note that while the assessment of the Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival
rating for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals, funding will be
released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory Inclusion Plan is approved by
the selection official. If funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, that request
for funding should be clearly identified and justified in the budget as a separate budget
element so it can be assessed. Reviewers and proposers will be invited to provide
comments and suggestions to improve the Inclusion Plan aspect of this research
program after the review is completed. 
2.9 Evaluation Criteria
All proposals with be evaluated for Intrinsic Merit, Cost, and Relevance, as defined in
Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and consistent with Section V(a) of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and D.1 the Astrophysics Research
Overview.

D.16-8
In addition, the evaluation of Merit will include:
• The scientific merit of the science goals of the proposed investigation,
• The scope of the proposed investigation and its justification as a science
investigation that will reduce future Great Observatory mission’s development
and/or mission design risk,
• The degree to which the proposed investigation enhances the science return and
reduces the mission’s design risk,
• The degree to which the proposed investigation provides information needed to
qualify a future mission’s ability to meet its science goals,
• How effectively the proposed investigation would address the proposed scientific
objectives,
• The degree to which it advances the readiness of early-career researchers or
graduate students to assume roles in advancing NASA’s strategic objectives,
• The proposed investigation’s Data Management Plan as described in Section 2.6
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first year
$2.5 M
of new awards
Number of new awards pending
10-15 of varying size and scope
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due date for Mandatory Notice of See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Intent to propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of investigation Typically, October of 2023, but allowed
between September and December 2023.
Page limit for the central Science- 15 pages including the DMP.
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See D.1 The Astrophysics Research
proposals Program Overview and Table 1 of ROSES-
2022.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 2.22-
submission of proposals 3.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is required or permitted.

D.16-9
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Main point of contact concerning this
program
D.16-10
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available
at support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ADSPS
Doris Daou
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: Doris.Daou@nasa.gov
D.17 X-RAY IMAGING AND SPECTROSCOPY MISSION GUEST SCIENTIST PROGRAM
NOTICE: Amended April 18, 2022. This amendment releases the final
text for this program element, which had been listed as "TBD". Neither
NOIs nor Step-1 proposals are requested. Proposals are due July 21,
2022. Proposals will be evaluated via dual-anonymous peer review.
See Section 2.3, below, and the associated "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document on the NSPIRES page for this
program element.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview of XRISM
The X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) is a Japan Aerospace
Exploration Agency (JAXA)-NASA collaborative mission with European Space Agency
(ESA) participation. XRISM will offer non-dispersive, high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy
in the soft X-ray bandpass (~0.3–12 keV), while offering complementary CCD imaging
resolution over a wide field of view. Four science categories have been defined for
XRISM: (1) Structure formation of the Universe and evolution of clusters of galaxies; (2)
Circulation history of baryonic matter in the Universe; (3) Transport and circulation of
energy in the Universe; (4) New science with unprecedented high-resolution X-ray
spectroscopy.
XRISM has two complementary instruments, the Resolve Soft X-ray Spectrometer and
the Xtend X-ray Imager. The instruments will be functionally identical to the Hitomi Soft
X-ray Spectrometer and Soft X-ray Imager. A brief description of these instruments can
be found in Tashiro et al., Proc. SPIE, Vol. 10699, id. 1069922 (2018).
The Resolve instrument, a high-resolution, non-dispersive X-ray microcalorimeter, is
developed jointly by NASA and JAXA. It is the core instrument on XRISM, covering the
0.3–12 keV energy band, where many astrophysically abundant elements have
characteristic emission and absorption lines that can be used to study matter under
extreme conditions. Its performance will be similar to that of the Hitomi Soft X-ray
Spectrometer (SXS): spectral resolution of <7 eV across the 0.3–12 keV energy band;
effective area of ~300 cm2 at 6 keV; a square field of view of roughly 3 arcminutes on a
side with a 6x6 array of 30 arcsecond pixels; and angular resolution of roughly 1.3 arc
minutes (half power diameter).
The Xtend instrument is developed by JAXA and covers the same energy band as the
Resolve instrument. It expands the field of view of the observatory with a Charge
Coupled Device (CCD) camera. It is expected to have similar performance to that of the
Hitomi Soft X-ray Imager (SXI): typical CCD spectral resolution of approximately 170 eV
at 6 keV; a square field of view approximately 40 arcminutes on a side with 1280x1280
pixels; and roughly the same angular resolution and effective area as Resolve. The X-
ray mirror assemblies (XMA) for Resolve and Xtend will be provided by NASA.
1.2 XRISM Key Mission Dates
XRISM is planned to be launched by March 2023. After an initial four-month activation
and calibration phase, the first six months of XRISM observations will consist of the

D.17-1
Performance Verification (PV) phase, in which a set of high-value scientific targets will
be observed, as determined by the XRISM Science Team. PV phase targets are
categorized as either “Priority A” (will be scheduled with highest priority) and “Priority C”
(might be observed, depending on scheduling constraints). After the PV phase, most
observations will be selected competitively through an international General Observer
program. All data will reside in a public archive at the HEASARC after expiration of any
exclusive use period.
1.3 The XRISM Science Team
To optimize the scientific utilization of the mission, NASA, JAXA, and ESA have
appointed the XRISM Science Team. This team primarily consists of scientists involved
in the development of XRISM, plus a small number of external Participating Scientists
selected competitively by the agencies.
The objective of the XRISM Science Team is to optimize the scientific return of XRISM,
particularly during the PV phase. The key tasks of the XRISM Science Team are to:
• Make recommendations regarding scientific aspects of the mission to the XRISM
Project Manager;
• Communicate and coordinate with the astronomical community regarding the
science capabilities of XRISM;
• Specify, oversee the development of, and beta test XRISM simulation, data
analysis, and user tools, including preparatory laboratory astrophysics activities;
• Demonstrate the performance of XRISM and its instruments by planning,
performing, and publishing the results from the PV phase observations;
• Ensure the scientific instruments are well calibrated and their operation is
understood.
Members of the XRISM Science Team have access to all PV phase data.
1.4 XRISM Target Teams
The list of targets for the PV Phase, along with a brief description of the observations
and the science objectives can be found at
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xrism/timelines/pvtargets.html. The XRISM Science
Team has self-organized into Target Teams. Each Target Team consists of several
XRISM Science Team members whose expertise is relevant for particular targets. The
Target Teams are responsible for developing observation plans, analyzing the obtained
data, and publishing the scientific outcomes. Membership in the Target Teams will also
be open to XRISM Guest Scientists (XGS), the U.S.-based and Canada-based
members of which are solicited in this ROSES element. XGS participants will not
become members of the XRISM Science Team.
1.5 XRISM Guest Scientists
XRISM Guest Scientists will participate in the analysis, interpretation, and publishing of
the PV data for the target on which the investigation in the selected XGS proposal is
focused. Access to the XRISM PV data for XGS awardees is limited to observations of
this target and any ancillary data required to perform the analysis. XRISM Guest

D.17-2
Scientists will be required to abide by the Publication Policies and the Code of Conduct
(to be finalized and posted) that apply to the entire XRISM Science Team.
2 Proposal Submission and Evaluation
2.1 Eligibility to Propose
Participation in this solicitation is open to individuals who are not XRISM Science Team
members, from all categories of U.S. and Canadian organizations, including
educational, industrial, and not-for-profit organizations, Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs),
NASA Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and other Government agencies.
XGS proposals will be accepted only from individual Principal Investigators, without any
other investigators. However, limited funds may be allocated to enable the efficient
discharge of the responsibilities by additional personnel, such as students, postdoctoral
researchers, or support staff.
2.2 Proposal Submission Process
Through this program, scientists who are not XRISM Science Team members may
apply to participate in the observation planning and data analysis of individual PV-phase
targets. All proposals must describe the complementary and/or enhancing scientific
expertise that the proposer would bring to a Target Team. This expertise may include,
but is not limited to: substantial theoretical insight, models for X-ray emission from the
relevant astrophysical phenomena, unique or specialized data analysis techniques, or
complementary data on the source from other X-ray observatories or other wavebands.
Further examples of expertise may be found at:
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xrism/proposals/guest_scientists.html
Simulation software products and support files necessary to write a proposal, may be
found at: https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xrism/proposals/index.html
Each proposer may request to join up to three Target Teams but will only be selected
for at most one. Some Target Teams may have more than one XGS participant added
to the team when the JAXA, NASA, and ESA solicitations are combined, but no more
than one XGS participant will be selected by a given agency for a given target. Some
Target Teams may have no XGS participants added. If the targets and the science
proposed are sufficiently similar, it is acceptable for a single proposal to be submitted
for consideration for up to three targets. Proposers should clearly indicate in the
proposal which targets they wish to be considered for. If multiple targets are specified,
an order of preference is to be provided. A PI may submit up to three separate
proposals for up to three different targets per PI but no more than one at most might be
selected.
Proposals for “Priority C” targets are allowed but come with the inherent risk that the
target may never be observed.
2.3 Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Proposals
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review (DAPR) process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the
members on the review panel, reviewers are not told the identity of proposers until after

D.17-3
the evaluation (see below). The overarching objective of dual-anonymous peer review is
to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit of a proposal.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for
this program element that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-
anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included in the body of the proposal PDF
either in its entirety or as a summary and 2) proposers must upload a separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document, that contains all of the
personally (and organizational) identifying information.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals, without taking into account the
proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after the evaluation is finalized
for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" documents. The panel will assess the qualifications of the team in order to
allow the reviewers to assess the team capabilities required to execute a given
proposed science investigation.
The requirements for preparing and submitting proposals under the dual-anonymous
peer review process are summarized in Table D.17-1.
Table D.17-1. A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals
(reproduced from the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document).
Item Requirement
Anonymization Proposals must be anonymized.
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal Summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and include either
in its entirety or as a summary in the 5-page central
Science/Technical/Management section.
Page Limits 5 pages for the central Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal.
Biographical Sketch Do not include in the anonymized proposal document. This
information is gathered in the separate “Expertise and
Resources - Not Anonymized” document (see below).
Current and Pending Do not include in the anonymized proposal document. Include
Support in separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document (see below).
Redacted Budget and Omit budget details from the anonymized proposal. U.S.-
Budget Narrative based PIs only must provide a separately uploaded “Total
Budget”, see Section 2.5.

D.17-4
Summary of work Include an anonymized version (e.g., PI; Graduate Student) in
effort, including Table the main proposal document. Include a not-anonymized
of Work Effort version in separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in
equipment the separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research
in an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions
of facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with
facilities are to be included in the separate "Expertise and
Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Letters of Resource Do not include in main proposal document. Include in the
Support (e.g., from separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
archives, facilities, etc.) document.
Data Management No Data Management Plan is required for this program which
Plan has a restricted-access period during the PV phase per
international agreement.
Letters or Statements All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Computing Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate "Expertise Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
and Resources - Not document provides:
Anonymized" 1. A list of all team members, their affiliations and roles (e.g.,
document PI, Postdoctoral researcher), and their contributions to the
work;
2. Brief descriptions of the scientific and technical expertise
each team member brings, emphasizing the experiences
necessary to be successful in executing the proposed
work.
3. A description of the contribution that each team member
will make to the proposed investigation.
4. A discussion of specific resources (“Facilities and
Equipment”, e.g., access to a laboratory, observatory,
specific instrumentation, etc.) that are required to perform
the proposed investigation.
5. The not-anonymized Table of Work Effort;
6. Biographical Sketch/CV for the PI (limit 2 pages);
7. Statements of Current and Pending Support for the PI;
8. A discussion of any specific resources that are key to

D.17-5
 completing the proposed work;
9. Letters of commitment from any specialized facilities,
foreign institutions, etc. that will support the proposed
investigation.

2.4 Page Limits

The page limit for the Science/Technical/Management Section of XGS proposals is 5
pages. This does not include the separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document, described above.
2.5 Budget Preparation Instructions
Proposers must omit budget details from the anonymized proposal PDF file. U.S.
proposers must fill out the NSPIRES web interface budget and upload a separate “Total
budget” file with all budget details and justification. The period of performance begins on
October 1, 2022. This start date is contingent on the availability of appropriated funds. It
is expected that investigators will propose for two years of support. The total amount of
funding for a selected proposal is expected to be approximately $120,000. The bulk of
the funding should be concentrated in the period after launch, but limited funds will be
available prior to launch to enable travel to a XRISM Science Team meeting and
onboarding of student or postdoctoral scientists.
For planning purposes, proposers should assume that the PI will take two, week-long
trips to Japan to attend XRISM Science Team meetings. These costs must be included
in the funding request.
Requests for funding are only allowable for scientists based at U.S. institutions.
Proposals from scientists at Canadian institutions will be considered on a no-exchange-
of-funds basis. The expected budget listed below in the summary table refers only to the
NASA support for those at U.S. institutions. Proposals from scientists based in Canada
will be reviewed to the same standards as proposals from U.S. institutions, and the PI
should read the Foreign PI Affiliation instructions document, which is downloadable as a
PDF file from the NSPIRES web page for this program element.
Proposals from scientists based at Canadian post-secondary institutions selected
through this process may seek financial support from the Canadian Space Agency
(CSA) by checking the CSA Grants Funding Opportunities https://asc-
csa.gc.ca/eng/funding-programs/grants-and-contributions-snapshot.asp.
2.6 Evaluation of Proposals
Proposals will be evaluated by a science peer review panel with respect to Merit, Cost,
and Relevance, as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, and
consistent with Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and D.1 the
Astrophysics Research Overview (e.g., see Section 1.2 regarding the requirement for
Data Management Plans and Archiving). In addition to the standard factors of Merit
listed in the Guidebook, intrinsic merit shall also include the following factors:

D.17-6
 1. The extent to which the proposed goals and objectives are complementary to or
enhance the scientific expertise of the XRISM Science Team for the relevant
individual targets
2. The extent to which the proposed science will contribute to the tasks of the
XRISM Science Team as listed in Section 1.3, above.
The peer review evaluation of cost will be limited to the assessment of the
appropriateness of the person time provided in the Table of personnel work effort, see
Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
2.7 Selection of XRISM Guest Scientists
The selection of the XRISM Guest Scientists is the responsibility of the Science Mission
Directorate at NASA Headquarters. The XRISM Program Scientist will be responsible
for organizing the evaluation of proposals, including the convening of the peer review
panel. The selection decisions are made by the Astrophysics Division Director.
3. Summary of Key Information
Expected total budget over the ~$2.5M. See Section 2.5
duration of 2-year the program
Number of new awards pending ~20.
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 2 years
Due date for Notices of Intent No Notices of Intent are requested for this
program element.
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of investigation October 1, 2022
Page limit for the central Science- 5 pp; see also Table 1 of the ROSES
Technical-Management section of Summary of Solicitation and the NASA
proposal Guidebook for Proposers.
Relevance This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals in the NASA Science
Plan. Proposals that are relevant to this
program are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See D.1 The Astrophysics Research
proposals Program Overview and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
submission of proposals 4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hard copy is required or permitted.

D.17-7
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Programmatic point of contact
concerning this program for policies
governing XGS program
Point of contact for technical matters
regarding XRISM
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-XGS
Valerie Connaughton
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-578-8504
Email: valerie.connaughton@nasa.gov
Brian Williams
Astrophysics Science Division
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD
Email: brian.j.williams@nasa.gov
D.17-8
D.18 EXTREME PRECISION RADIAL VELOCITY FOUNDATION SCIENCE
NOTICE: Amended December 20, 2022. This amendment presents a
new opportunity in program element D.18 Extreme Precision Radial
Velocity Foundation Science.
Proposals to this program will follow the two-step process wherein the
informal Notice of Intent to propose is replaced by a formal Step-1
proposal submitted by an organization’s Authorized Organizational
Representative; see Section 3 for details. The deadline for submission
of Step-1 proposals is February 16, 2023. Step-1 proposals are
mandatory; only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal can submit
a Step-2 (full) proposal.
Step-2 proposals will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous review
process. Proposals must be prepared according to the guidelines in
Section 3.5 and in the associated "Guidelines for Proposers to ROSES
Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Programs" document under other
documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element. The
deadline for submission of Step-2 proposals is April 26, 2023.
1. Background and Motivation
The 2020 Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics entitled, “Pathways to
Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s” (hereafter “Astro2020”) was
released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Mathematics
(NASEM) in November 2021. That document lays out a wide-ranging and compelling
vision for the field of Astrophysics in the coming decade and beyond. For NASA, the
centerpiece of Astro2020 is the vision it presents for a new generation of Great
Observatories – a trio of ambitious NASA space astrophysics missions that will span the
electromagnetic spectrum and usher in a new era of scientific discovery.
To enable this bold vision, Astro2020 made the establishment of a Great Observatories
Mission and Technology Maturation Program its top-priority Large Initiative for NASA.
This program (hereafter “GOMaP”, short for “Great Observatories Maturation Program”)
was conceived to address the finding:
"For a decadal survey to confidently recommend implementation of a
strategic mission as its highest priority, the mission’s technology and
architecture needs to be developed to a level of maturity that allows a
reasonable assessment of budget profile, scientific performance, and
technology risk." (Astro2020, Section 7.5.1, p. 7-10)
The GOMaP approach involves significant parallel investments in mission concept
development, technology maturation, and precursor science during the formulation
stage of a mission and is designed to place these challenging new missions on a solid
foundation from the outset.
Precursor science refers to science that will reduce the risk of these future Great
Observatory missions and inform associated mission architecture trade studies and
design decisions. Precursor science is distinct from preparatory science, which may
inform the use of a new observatory, but does not affect the mission architecture. To

D.18-1
identify and articulate key precursor science needs of the missions described by
Astro2020, NASA held a series of two Precursor Science Workshops in April and
October 2022. Information about those workshops, including their outcomes and the list
of precursor science gaps that was produced, can be found online at the associated
“Precursors to Pathways” webpage.
The first mission recommended by Astro2020 to enter the GOMaP process is a large
infrared/optical/ultraviolet (IR/O/UV) space telescope for general astrophysics and which
has the capability to directly detect and characterize potential habitable, rocky planets in
the solar neighborhood. Such a mission was previously identified as a key to the
advancement of exoplanet science in the NASEM’s 2018 Exoplanet Science Strategy
report (hereafter, “the ESS”), which provided a comprehensive overview of the key
scientific questions facing the field as well as near-, medium-, and far-term
measurement capabilities and technologies required to address them. One of the
central findings of the ESS was that exoplanet mass is a crucial characteristic of
planetary systems and essential to analyzing and interpreting the observations of a
future exoplanet direct detection mission.
In view of the central importance of determining planet masses to the field of exoplanet
science and to the science yield of a future flagship mission which involves direct
detection of exoplanets, and consistent with the overarching goal of characterizing
potentially habitable, Earth-like exoplanets and searching for life, the ESS
recommended that, “NASA and NSF […] establish a strategic initiative in extremely
precise radial velocities (EPRVs) to develop methods and facilities for measuring the
masses of temperate terrestrial planets orbiting Sun-like stars.” In practice, this means
achieving EPRV measurement precisions on the order of ~1 cm/s – roughly an order-of-
magnitude improvement over the current state-of-the-art. The essential nature of
exoplanet mass measurements and their importance to the development of Astro2020s
IR/O/UV space telescope was recently reiterated through the proceedings of the NASA
Precursor Science Workshops.
In response to the original ESS recommendation, the Astrophysics Division introduced
the Extreme Precision Radial Velocity Foundation Science program element under
ROSES 2020 (EPRV 2020) to support a pilot set of competitively-selected
investigations that addressed key challenges to achieving centimeter-per-second EPRV
measurement precisions. In support of both the ESS recommendations and the output
of the Precursor Science Workshops, this ROSES element is released to continue that
work.
In parallel with this call, NASA has also released the Astrophysics Decadal Survey
Precursor Science program element (ADSPS; ROSES 2022, Appendix D.16). That
program represents a broader call for investigations that address key precursor science
needs of all three Great Observatory concepts described by Astro2020 as reflected in
the Precursor Science Gap List. Prospective proposers with concepts for precursor
science investigations that address goals other than the advancement of EPRV
measurement precisions are encouraged to consider the suitability of their concept for
that solicitation.

D.18-2
2. Solicited Investigations
This ROSES program element solicits proposals for two-year investigations that fall
within the scientific and technical scope of the program as described in Section 2.1
below. Because of the limited funding available under this solicitation, the scope of this
proposal opportunity is necessarily limited and should not be construed as
representative of the full range of activities and investments that will be required to
reach EPRV measurement precisions at the level necessary to detect Earth-mass,
rocky planets in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars (~a few cm/sec). The scope of this
solicitation has been chosen to focus on science and data analysis techniques that were
identified as high value by the EPRV Working Group, and which have the prospect of
yielding significant advances in EPRV measurement precisions within the context of a
focused, two-year effort. Should this program be continued in future years, it is
anticipated that the scope would be broadened significantly in accordance with the
architecture described by the EPRV Working Group.
2.1. Scope of the Program: Stellar (Radial Velocity) Variability and Advanced Data
Analytics.
Stellar variability results from the effects of the complex combination of phenomena that
shape the surface of a star – e.g., convection, granulation, surface oscillations, flares,
spots, faculae, plage, etc. These phenomena are active over a wide range of spatial
and temporal scales and together create a performance plateau at measurement
precisions of ~1 m/s for many stars. This variability represents what is currently the
most significant barrier to achieving the ~1 cm/s precision needed to measure the
masses of potentially habitable, Earth-mass planets around Sun-like stars. A new
generation of EPRV instruments (including the NEID spectrometer on the WIYN
telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory and the Keck Planet Finder at the W. M.
Keck Observatory) have recently been commissioned and are delivering sub-meter-per-
second measurement precisions. It is expected that observations with this new level of
instrumentation will provide data sets for deep investigation into stellar variability and
other noise sources. Among instrument teams, a common set of standard star targets is
being negotiated to open the opportunity for cooperative/simultaneous observations.
Further, many of the new instruments will operate with solar feeds, collecting abundant
solar data for Sun-as-a-star investigations.
The central question of this effort is: "Can stellar variability be understood well enough
to mitigate its limitation on radial velocity precision?" To answer that question, this
ROSES element solicits investigations that will advance tools, techniques, and
understanding to enable the extraction of small Keplerian radial velocity signals buried
deeply within complex time-series stellar spectra. Specifically, we seek investigations in
the following areas:
● Studies of how stellar (including solar) surface phenomena (convection,
granulation, supergranulation, various flows, oscillations, magnetic fields, spots,
faculae, plage) impact the radial velocity time series measurements of disk-
integrated spectra and how those impacts vary over relevant time scales (e.g.,
rotational periods, magnetic cycles, convection time scales, etc.). Investigations
leading to the development of models, tools, and techniques that can be applied
to disk-integrated spectra of stars to mitigate stellar radial velocity variability.

D.18-3
 ● Analyses of disk-integrated precision radial velocity observations of the Sun and
benchmark (standard) stars, along with cross comparisons and simultaneous
observations from different radial velocity instruments, designed to evaluate the
effectiveness of mitigation strategies for stellar radial velocity variability and
instrument systematics.
● Development of advanced statistical methodologies to analyze complex radial
velocity datasets to enable detection of small planets and precisely measure their
masses.
● Interdisciplinary research that capitalizes on existing and new heliophysics
datasets beyond just those from the solar feeds of existing EPRV instruments to
help model/detrend/interpret disk-integrated solar RV measurements for broad
application in stellar astrophysics.
Proposed investigations may involve theory, observation, analysis of archival data, or a
combination of these approaches.
2.2. Program Exclusions
This ROSES element narrowly focuses on supporting research investigations designed
to advance the current state-of-the-art in EPRV measurement precision. Consequently,
proposals in the following categories are not solicited:
● Science-driven investigations wherein the primary emphasis is the
characterization of exoplanets and expansion of our knowledge of the nature of
exoplanetary systems. Such work is solicited under the Exoplanets Research
program element (XRP; ROSES Appendix F.3).
● Investigations wherein the primary emphasis is a different aspect of exoplanet
science or general astrophysics related science for the IR/O/UV Great
Observatory prioritized by Astro2020. Such work is solicited under the
Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor Science program element (ADSPS;
ROSES 2022 Appendix D.16).
In addition, this program element does not solicit proposals for the development of
radial velocity instrumentation or component technologies, nor does it solicit proposals
for the advancement of measurement or calibration technologies that enable high
precision radial velocity measurements. Such work may be within scope under future
cycles of this program element if it is extended and if sufficient funding is available.
3. Proposal Preparation and Submission
3.1. Step-1 Proposals
This program element will use a two-step proposal submission process (see Section
IV.(b)vii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation). Step-1 proposals are required and
must be submitted electronically by the Authorized Organizational Representative
(AOR) of the proposing organization. Only proposers who submit Step-1 proposals will
be eligible to submit Step-2 proposals. Budgets are not required for Step-1 proposals
and Step-1 proposals are not required to be anonymized. Submission of a Step-1
proposal does not obligate a proposer to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal.

D.18-4
Proposers should refer to the “Instructions for Submitting a Step-1 Proposal” under
“Other Documents” on the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and
Evaluation System (NSPIRES) web page for this program. The Step-1 proposal is
entered directly into a text field on the NSPIRES web interface and is restricted to 4,000
characters; no attachments are required or permitted. The Step-1 proposal should
identify the PI and all proposing team members, and should include a description of:
● The goals and objectives of the proposed work;
● The approach and methodology to be used to address the goals and/or
objectives; and
● The reason(s) why the work proposed is within the scope of this program
element.
The Step-1 proposal may be used to determine whether the proposal was submitted to
the correct program element, but no further evaluation is performed for Step-1
proposals. The perceived relevance of the work described in the Step-1 proposal to the
defined scope of the program element (Section 2.1) will be the main factor in deciding
whether submission of a Step-2 proposal will be encouraged. Proposers will be notified
through the NSPIRES whether their Step-2 proposal is encouraged or discouraged, at
which point they will be able to create a Step-2 proposal via NSPIRES.
3.2. Step-2 Proposals
Proposers should refer to the document entitled “How to submit a Step-2 proposal”
under “Other Documents” on the NSPIRES page for this program. Whether the Step-1
was encouraged or discouraged, the proposers may submit a Step-2. Step-2 (full)
proposals must broadly address the same scientific goals proposed in the Step-1
proposal. Between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, proposers wishing to change the
assigned PI or add funded investigators to the proposing team must inform the point of
contact identified in the summary table of key information (Section 4) with cc to
sara@nasa.gov at least two weeks in advance of the Step-2 proposal due date. The PI
role may only be reassigned to a Co-I at the proposing organization who was listed in
the original Step-1 proposal.
Table 1 of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation provides a checklist of required
information to be included in full proposals. Proposers should refer to that guidance for
the preparation of their Step-2 proposals. Step-2 proposals must also comply with all
requirements of the dual-anonymous peer review as described in Section 3.5.
3.3. Data Management Plans
Proposals to this program element must include an explicit data management plan
(DMP). The DMP may not exceed two pages in length and must be anonymized
according to the instructions provided in Section 3.5. The DMP must be included in the
anonymized Step-2 proposal document in a separate section entitled, “Data
Management Plan” located immediately following the references and citations. The two-
page DMP section does not count against the 15-page limit of the
Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section. Formatting requirements for DMPs
are the same as for the S/T/M section.

D.18-5
The sufficiency of the DMP will be evaluated as part of the Merit evaluation of the
proposal. The DMP should contain the following elements, as appropriate to the project:
● A description of data sources, types, volume, formats, and (where relevant)
standards;
● A description of the schedule for data archiving and sharing;
● A description of the intended repositories for archived data, including
mechanisms for public access and distribution;
● A discussion of how the plan enables long-term preservation of data;
● A discussion of roles and responsibilities of team members (presented
anonymously as, e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in accomplishing the DMP.
It is anticipated that many of the data products of the research solicited here (including,
but not limited to, raw and high-level data products, and software) will be appropriate for
curation as part of the NASA Exoplanet Archive (NEA) and/or the associated Exoplanet
Follow-up Observing Program (ExoFOP) system. Proposers planning to take advantage
of these repositories should include any associated costs in the budget of their
investigation and should include a letter of acknowledgement from the NEA/ExoFOP in
their separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document.
3.4. Formatting Requirements
Organization and formatting of the Step-2 proposal must conform to the requirements
described in the 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES-2022 Summary
of Solicitation. There is no minimum requirement for fonts used within figures and tables
but all text in figures and tables should be legible to reviewers and illegible content may
be cited as a weakness of any proposal. Proposals that do not conform to the page
limits and formatting requirements described or referenced in this solicitation will be
subject to penalty up to and including decline without review.
3.5. Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Step-2 (full) proposals submitted to this program element will be evaluated using the
Dual-Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR) process, in which not only are proposers
unaware of the identities of the members of the review panel, but also the reviewers are
not told the identities of the proposers until after the evaluation of the aspects of the
proposal that don’t include the identity of the proposers (see below). The overarching
objective of DAPR is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the scientific merit
of a proposal.
Proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for Proposers to ROSES Dual-
Anonymous Peer Review Programs" document under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element, that explains how to properly prepare a
proposal for DAPR. Violation of DAPR requirements is sufficient grounds to reject a
proposal without review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will be partly hidden for the peer reviewers. The Proposal Summary must
be anonymized but all other sections of the NSPIRES cover page should be completed
as normal and NSPIRES will hide the identifying information from the reviewers. The

D.18-6
proposal document must be anonymized and, in addition to anonymizing their Step-2
proposals, proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources Not
Anonymized" (E&R) document, which contains all the personally (and organizationally)
identifying information.
Review panels will be instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals without taking
into account the qualifications and capabilities of the proposers. After the evaluation of
the aspects of the proposal that don’t require the identity of the proposers has been
finalized for all proposals, panelists will be provided with the "Expertise and Resources
Not Anonymized" documents for a subset of proposals that scored highly (depending on
the grades and projected selection rates). The panel will then assess the qualifications
and capabilities of the team for these proposals and provide comments to NASA.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized Step-2 proposals is listed in Table
D.18-1 below. For additional details regarding DAPR, please visit the Science Mission
Directorate's DAPR we page.

Table D.18-1 Summary of Requirements for Anonymized Step-2 Proposals

Item Requirement
In addition to anonymizing the content, ensure that any PDF
Proposal Document
bookmarks are anonymous, and the document properties do
PDF file
not reveal names of author or organization.
Enter the anonymized summary as part of the NSPIRES
Proposal summary cover page. The proposal summary should not be duplicated
in the anonymized proposal document.
Scientific/Technical/
The S/T/M section must be anonymized. Omit all names of
Management (S/T/M)
team members and names of their organizations.
section of proposal
References References must use numerical callouts in the [1], [2] format.
DMP must be anonymized and included in a 2-page section
Data Management Plan
of the proposal document, see Section 3.3.
Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Biographical Sketches separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Table of Personnel and the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion
Work Effort in the separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Current and Pending
separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
Support
document.

D.18-7
 All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Feasibility, or Endorsement are to be included in the
Letters or Statements
separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document
Redacted Budget and Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
Narrative document in an anonymized format.
The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in
the separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
Facilities and
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research
Equipment
in an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying
descriptions of facilities and evidence of access to or
affiliation with facilities are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document.
Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
Attachment Type = "Expertise and Resources Not
Anonymized". This document provides a list of all team
Separate "Expertise
members, their roles, institutional affiliations, expertise, and
and Resources Not
contributions to the work. The document should also discuss
Anonymized"
any specific resources that are key to completing the
document
proposed work, as well as a summary of work effort.
Statements of Current and Pending Support must also be
included.
Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
Attachment Type = Total Budget. The mandatory total budget
Total Budget file is full and complete with all costs for those at U.S.
organizations, including those at government laboratories. It
is not redacted or anonymized.
Submit optional not-anonymized PDF HEC form as
attachment type "Optional HEC request" in NSPIRES. The
High-End Computing
S/T/M section in the main proposal must state that a HEC
(HEC) request
request is included and must provide an outline of the
computing resources required in an anonymized fashion.

4. Summary of Key Information

Expected total program budget for $2.5 M

lifecycle of new awards
Estimated number of new awards 5 - 8 awards
pending sufficient proposals of merit

Maximum duration of awards Awards should be for a duration of 2 years.

D.18-8
Due date for Notice of Intent to
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
October 1, 2023
15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
This program is relevant to the Astrophysics
questions and goals described in the NASA
Science Plan. Proposals that are relevant to
this program are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See Section IV and Table 1 of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation.
See the NSPIRES Online Help page, Section 3
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-EPRV
D.18-9
Point of contact concerning this
program
Douglas Hudgins
Exoplanet Exploration Program Scientist
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 202-358-0988
Email: douglas.m.hudgins@nasa.gov
D.18-10
D.19 ULTRAVIOLET TRANSIENT ASTRONOMY SATELLITE PARTICIPATING SCIENTISTS
NOTICE: Amended December 23, 2022 This amendment presents a
new opportunity in this program element D.19 Ultraviolet Transient
Astronomy Satellite Participating Scientists Program. Notices of
intent are requested by January 23, 2023, and proposals are due March
31, 2023.
This program element differs from and supersedes the default rules in
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the Guidebook in a number
of ways: 1) The S/T/M Section is limited to 6 pages 2) That 6-page limit
includes references. 3) No Data Management Plan is required for this
element. 4) No NSPIRES cover page budget is requested nor are
budget details or justification part of the peer reviewed proposal
documents. However, the normal separately uploaded "Total" budget
file is required for proposers requesting NASA funding, see Section
3.5.
This program will evaluate proposals using dual-anonymous peer
review, see Section 3.2.
1. Scope of Program
1.1 Overview of ULTRASAT
The Ultraviolet Transient Astronomy Satellite (ULTRASAT) is a new wide-field ultraviolet
imaging mission planned for launch to geostationary orbit in 2025. ULTRASAT is led by
the Israel Space Agency through the Weizmann Institute of Science. This ROSES-2022
program element is an opportunity for United States-based investigators to participate in
ULTRASAT science under agreements between the ULTRASAT project in Israel and
NASA; and also between the ULTRASAT project and the Vera Rubin Observatory.
NASA is an ULTRASAT partner, under a U.S.-Israeli agreement that is currently in the
approval process. Based on expected terms of this agreement, NASA will provide a
rideshare launch to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit. The ULTRASAT science data will
be served to the scientific community through NASA’s IPAC Infrared Science Archive
(IRSA) following the end of each restricted-access period. NASA’s role will also include
science working group membership for some U.S.-based scientists who will be selected
through this ROSES-2022 element.
ULTRASAT’s single scientific instrument is a high quantum efficiency imaging camera
with a fixed passband (230-290 nm wavelength), a 200 square degree field of view,
approximately 91 megapixels, and 10 arcsecond characteristic spatial resolution.
ULTRASAT’s imaging sensitivity limit is expected to be > 22.3 magnitude (AB) at 5 in 3
x 300 seconds of integration over the central 170 square degrees of its field.
Under its present operations concept (which is still being developed), ULTRASAT will
spend up to 21 hours per day monitoring a single field of view using repeated 300
second exposures, thus providing high cadence time domain observations. An
additional three hours per day will be spent on either an all-sky survey (during the first
six months of operation), or on a lower cadence survey covering a wider area (40 fields)

D.19-1
with a slower (4 day) cadence. All of these programs can be interrupted for Target-of-
Opportunity observations taken in response to gravitational wave event triggers.
ULTRASAT data is subject to a one-year limited-access period, with data access during
that period being open to members of the Israeli ULTRASAT community and to selected
external participating scientists granted data access through agreements with Israel.
Such agreements are under negotiation with two U.S.-based organizations: NASA and
the Vera Rubin Observatory (which is supported by the U.S. National Science
Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy). This opportunity is the mechanism for
selecting ULTRASAT Participating Scientists from United States institutions.
NASA anticipates that only a subset of selected proposals will be offered funding; others
will be eligible for funding elsewhere, see below. The number of Participating Scientists
selected for working group membership and data rights will depend on the conclusion of
ongoing discussions with the ULTRASAT project in Israel, while the number receiving
financial support will depend on the availability of funds. Selected Participating
Scientists who do not receive NASA funding may apply for funding through other
sources such as the NSF’s Astronomy & Astrophysics Grants program but should note
that there is no set-aside by NSF for this ULTRASAT program. Participation in the
program offers access to all ULTRASAT data without regard to the proprietary period for
those selected with or without funding and thus represents a valuable scientific
opportunity.
Key science goals for ULTRASAT include constraining the physics of gravitational wave
sources through searches for their UV counterparts, and learning about the progenitors
of core collapse supernovae through early observations of their UV light curves.
Numerous additional science goals are under consideration by ULTRASAT science
working groups (which are enumerated and further discussed in Section 1.4 below).
1.2 Mission Key Dates
ULTRASAT launch is planned for 2025.
The first six months of regular science operations will consist of high cadence time
domain survey observations, the all-sky survey, and Target of Opportunity (ToO)
observations.
Subsequently, ULTRASAT will continue with high cadence time domain survey
observations, low cadence/wide area time domain survey observations, and ToO
observations.
The nominal mission life is three years.
1.3 Participating Scientists
ULTRASAT Participating Scientists will join the ULTRASAT science team and will
pursue science investigations related to ULTRASAT. Selected Participating Scientists
will contribute to the mission by joining one or more topical ULTRASAT science working
groups, where they will help develop, coordinate, and implement research plans for the
corresponding science area. Successful proposals are expected to describe one or
more specific research questions that will be addressed.

D.19-2
This selection is for a three-year term as ULTRASAT participating scientist. It is
expected that the term will cover pre-launch activities and approximately the first six
months of on-orbit science operations. During this period, Participating Scientists will
have access to ULTRASAT data (which will otherwise be subject to a limited access
period of one year). In the event of launch delays, the program will be extended to
ensure that selected participating scientists have access to the first approximately six
months of ULTRASAT data during their period of performance. Proposals selected for
funding would have their funding support incremented to cover the extended period of
performance, insofar as resources permit when a launch delay becomes apparent.
Participation in annual science team meetings, to be held in Israel, is expected, with in-
person attendance preferred, but virtual participation may be accommodated.
Participating Scientists will be consulted by IRSA personnel at IPAC in their formulation
of science use cases that will drive the development of the ULTRASAT archive at IPAC
for the benefit of the scientific community.
1.4 Science Working Groups
Scientific planning for ULTRASAT resides in a set of Science Working Groups. There
are currently 13 working groups:
1. WG1: Transient Stellar Explosions
2. WG2: Gravitational Wave Sources
3. WG3: Exoplanets and the Star-Planet Connection
4. WG4: Cosmology
5. WG5: Stars, Stellar Structure, and Evolution
6. WG6: Galaxies
7. WG7: Active Galactic Nuclei
8. WG8: Tidal Disruption Events
9. WG9: Solar System
10. WG10: Gamma Ray Bursts
11. WG11: Data Analysis
12. WG12: Transient Alerts
13. WG13: Follow Up
Each working group is responsible for identifying and planning for key science questions
and papers in its topical area. Further background on the Working Groups may be found
at https://www.weizmann.ac.il/ultrasat/for-scientists/working-groups/working-groups.
This proposal call provides the sole mechanism for U.S. scientists to officially join
ULTRASAT Science Working Groups.
Proposals for research that does not fall within the areas of existing science working
groups are welcome. If such proposals are received and selected, we expect that the
selected scientist would work with the ULTRASAT Science Board to coordinate their
work with the wider ULTRASAT community, perhaps by establishing a new working
group.
Overall ULTRASAT science policies are set by the ULTRASAT Science Board, which
includes the NASA Project Scientist as a NASA representative.

D.19-3
2. The ULTRASAT Participating Scientist Proposal
The full proposal must:
• Explain the scientific importance of the proposed investigation.
• Describe the role of ULTRASAT data in the investigation, including which
ULTRASAT modes or data products are to be used (e.g. the all-sky survey, deep
or wide time domain surveys, or Target of Opportunity observations).
• If other data sets or observations form a key component of the proposed
investigation, describe those other data sets or observations and their role (from
NASA missions, the Vera Rubin Observatory, or other sources), and how they
will be combined with ULTRASAT data.
• Demonstrate that the anticipated ULTRASAT mission capabilities and operation
concept (observing modes) will enable the investigation to be successfully
performed.
• Enumerate any modifications to baseline ULTRASAT operations that would
benefit the investigation, and specify whether such modifications would be
essential or enhancing for the proposed investigation. (NASA cannot guarantee
that such modifications would be undertaken, but selected Participating
Scientists will have an opportunity to discuss proposed modifications within the
framework of the ULTRASAT Science Working Groups.)
• Describe the investigator’s proposed role in and contributions to the Science
Working Groups.
The proposed candidate investigation(s) may be observational or theoretical in nature.
2.1 The ULTRASAT Participating Scientist and the ULTRASAT Science Team
The ULTRASAT project includes an existing scientific team that has established
research plans with significant detail in some (but not all) working group topical areas.
A list of publication topics already anticipated by the existing working groups may be
found in the publication topics PDF posted under “Other documents” on the NSPIRES
page for this program element.
Newly selected Participating Scientists will be joining this community. Proposed
research will be conducted in the context of Working Group activities, including existing
working group plans. Responses to this call may propose collaboration on already-
planned research topics, and/or propose entirely new topics. Proposals should ideally
explain how they contribute to, complement, or extend already-planned work. Selection
will be based on the overall scientific return anticipated from the proposed investigation,
and no proposal will be declined solely due to overlap with the anticipated paper topic
list. However, determination of lead authorship on any paper enabled by the
Participating Scientist Program will be carried out within the framework of collaboration
in the ULTRASAT Science Working Groups.
To facilitate the submission of feasible candidate science investigations, proposing
investigators are referred to the technical resources describing ULTRASAT details that
are maintained by the Weizmann Institute. We call particular attention to the Science
Goals page at https://www.weizmann.ac.il/ultrasat/science-mission/science-goals for

D.19-4
background information; and to the working groups list at
https://www.weizmann.ac.il/ultrasat/for-scientists/working-groups/working-groups.
Given that ULTRASAT Participating Scientists are expected to work together with the
international ULTRASAT team and science working group(s) to help develop the
mission’s science program, their plans and qualifications for such work are a material
consideration in selection. The review panel will assess the qualifications of the
proposed Participating Scientist and team to fulfill this role based on the material
presented in the not anonymized “Expertise and Resources” document (see Section 3.2
below). Proposers are advised to consider this when preparing their materials, and may
wish to describe their plans or relevant experience working in collaborative or team
environments.
3. Proposal Preparation, Submission, and Evaluation
3.1 Eligibility to Propose
Individuals from all categories of U.S. organizations are eligible to propose, including
educational, industrial, and not-for-profit organizations, Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs),
NASA Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and other Government agencies.
Each ULTRASAT Participating Scientist proposal may put forward one person, in
general the PI, to be named as a Participating Scientist and to hold science working
group membership. The proposal may not include Co-Investigators or Collaborators;
these roles are disabled in NSPIRES.
Proposals with team members who are named in the proposal as Collaborators or Co-
Investigators may be rejected without review. However, it is allowable for funding from
this call to be used for additional personnel, such as postdoctoral researchers, graduate
students. All named individuals participating on the proposal must be listed on the
NSPIRES cover pages and confirm their participation online. In NSPIRES proposers
must use the "Graduate/undergraduate Student" or "Postdoctoral Associate" roles when
adding "Team Members". Those with Student or “Postdoctoral Associate" roles will not
serve as full members of the ULTRASAT Science Working Groups, but may become
working group associates subject to approval by the ULTRASAT Science Board.
The prospective Participating Scientist must be deemed qualified by peer review, see
Section 3.6, e.g., hold a PhD or equivalent degree in astrophysics, astronomy, physics,
or a closely related field, or else expect to receive one before the period of performance
for this opportunity begins.
If an institution wants to submit a proposal for an individual to serve as an ULTRASAT
Participating Scientist but their institutional rules prevent assigning the "Principal
Investigator" role to that individual (e.g., postdoctoral researchers, etc.), NSPIRES
provides a work around: the institution may designate the intended ULTRASAT
Participating Scientist as the "Co-I/Science PI" in NSPIRES, and assign another
individual to serve as the figurehead Principal Investigator. More information may be
found at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs#9.

D.19-5
3.2 Specific Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review Proposals
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review (DAPR) process in which not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the
reviewers, the reviewers are not told the identity of the proposers until after the
evaluation of the aspects of the proposal that don’t include the identity of the proposers
(see below). The objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to minimize bias in the
evaluation of the merit of a proposal.
Since NOI summaries may be shared with reviewers as part of the review assignment
process, NOIs must also be Anonymous.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Proposal
Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES "cover pages"
will be partly hidden for the peer reviewers. The Proposal Summary must be
anonymized but all other sections of the NSPIRES cover page should be completed as
normal and NSPIRES will hide the identifying information from the reviewers. The
proposal document must be anonymized, and proposers must upload a separate
"Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document, that contains all of the
personally (and organizational) identifying information.
Review panels will be instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals without taking
into account the qualifications and capabilities of the proposers. After the evaluation of
the aspects of the proposal that don’t require the identity of the proposers has been
finalized for all proposals, panelists will be provided with the "Expertise and Resources
Not Anonymized" documents for a subset of proposals that scored highly (depending on
the grades and projected selection rates). The panel will then assess the qualifications
and capabilities of the team for these proposals and provide comments to NASA.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals is listed below.
Table D.19-1. A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals
Item Requirement
Proposal Document In addition to anonymizing the content, ensure that any PDF
PDF file bookmarks are anonymous and the document properties do
not reveal names of author or organization.
Science-Technical- The S/T/M section must be anonymized. Omit all names of
Management (S/T/M) team members and names of their organizations.
section of proposal
References Part of the page-limited S/T/M Section. References must be in
the [1], [2] format.
Data Management Not required. ULTRASAT Participating Scientist Program
Plan which has a restricted-access period per international
agreement.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Sketches separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Table of Personnel Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Postdoctoral
and Work Effort researcher; Student) in the main proposal document and in

D.19-6
 non-anonymized fashion in the separate "Expertise and
Resources Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Pending Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Support separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Letters or Statements All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document
Redacted Budget Omit budget details from the anonymized proposal. PIs
and Narrative wishing to be considered for NASA funding must provide a
separately uploaded “Total Budget”, see Section 3.5.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in
Equipment the separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research
in an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions
of facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with
facilities are to be included in the separate "Expertise and
Resources Not Anonymized" document.
Separate "Expertise Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
and Resources Not Attachment Type = "Expertise and Resources Not
Anonymized" Anonymized”. This document provides:
document
1. A list of all team members; their roles (e.g. PI, Student,
Postdoc), including an explicit designation of one
investigator as the proposed ULTRASAT Participating
Scientist.
2. Brief descriptions of the scientific and technical expertise
each team member brings, emphasizing the experiences
necessary to be successful in executing the proposed
work.
3. A description of the contribution that each team member
will make to the proposed investigation.
4. Any relevant information not covered in anonymized
proposal materials on how the proposed research fits with
existing ULTRASAT community plans, and how the
proposing team hopes to coordinate efforts within the
ULTRASAT science working group structure.
5. A discussion of specific resource (“Facilities and
Equipment”, e.g., access to a laboratory, observatory,
specific instrumentation, etc.) that are required to perform
the proposed investigation.
(Items 1-5, inclusive, should not exceed 4 pages total.)
6. The not-anonymized Table of Work Effort.

D.19-7
 7. Biographical Sketches /CVs for the PI and other named
team members (limit 2 pages for the proposed
ULTRASAT Participating Scientist; 1 page for others).
8. Statements of Current and Pending Support for the PI.
9. A discussion of any specific resources that are key to
completing the proposed work.
10. Letters of commitment from any archives, specialized
facilities, foreign institutions, etc. that will support the
proposed investigation.
Total Budget Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
Attachment Type = Total Budget. The mandatory total budget
file is full and complete with all costs for those at U.S.
organizations, including those at government laboratories. It is
not redacted or anonymized.
High-End Computing Submit optional not-anonymized PDF HEC form as
(HEC) request attachment type "Optional HEC request" in NSPIRES. The
S/T/M section in the main proposal must state that a HEC
request is included and must provide an outline of the
computing resources required in an anonymized fashion.

The "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" posted under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element has example text for anonymized proposals,
but those generic instructions are superseded by this program element, which is not
standard in a number of ways, e.g., no budget in the proposal, no DMP, the references
and citations being part of the S/T/M section, etc., so follow the instructions in this
program element.
3.3 Notice of Intent
Notice of Intent is is strongly encouraged but not required.
Each anonymous NOI must state:
• Which ULTRASAT Science Working Group(s) the Proposer would like to join.
• A succinct summary of the proposed investigation (anonymous)
Proposals for research that does not fall within the areas of existing science working
groups are welcome, as described in Section 1.4, and the NOI should specify if this is
the case.
3.4 Modifications vs. ROSES-2022 for ULTRASAT Participating Scientist Proposals
This program element differs from and supersedes the default rules in the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and the Guidebook in a number of ways:
1) The S/T/M Section is limited to 6 pages
2) That 6-page limit includes references.
3) No Data Management Plan is required.
4) No NSPIRES cover page budget is requested nor are budget details or
justification part of the peer reviewed proposal documents.

D.19-8
 5) Peer review is Dual Anonymous, see Section 3.2
3.5 Budget Preparation Instructions
There is no NSPIRES cover page budget and proposers must omit budget details and
justification from the anonymized proposal PDF file. Proposers wishing to be considered
for NASA funding must upload a separate “Total budget” file with all budget details and
justification, which will not be seen by the peer reviewers. The period of performance
begins on July 1, 2023. This start date is contingent on funding availability. It is
expected that investigators will propose for three years of support running through June
30, 2026.
Each proposal requesting funding shall provide a budget justification for each year of
the proposed effort, which shall be supported by appropriate narrative material and
budget details in compliance with Section IV.(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation with the exception that this budget justification must be included in the
separately uploaded “Total budget” file.
For budget planning purposes, proposers should assume that the PI will participate in
person in one annual ULTRASAT Science Meeting, to be held in Israel; and additionally
in meetings of the Science Working Groups that they join. If the PI wishes to attend
Science Working Group meetings in person (currently held in Israel), then they should
increase the travel costs projected in their proposal budget accordingly.
Those who are not applying for NASA funding may ignore any warnings on the
NSPIRES web interface because they did not put information into the NSPIRES web
interface budget forms.
3.6 Evaluation
Proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria defined in Appendix D of the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers, and applied as described in Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation. In addition to the definition in the Guidebook, the evaluation of
the merit of the anonymized proposal shall also include:
1. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates that the anticipated ULTRASAT
mission capabilities and operation concept (observing modes) will enable the
investigation to be successfully performed (see Sections 1.1 and 2.);
2. Feasibility: demonstration that the investigation would be possible using the
available resources (ULTRASAT data, other relevant data, computing resources
or algorithms, etc, as appropriate).
Moreover, in addition to the definition in the Guidebook, the evaluation of the merit of
Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized document shall also include:
The qualifications and capabilities of the prospective participating scientist to work
together with the international ULTRASAT team and science working group(s) to help
develop the mission’s science program, based on the material presented in the not
anonymized “Expertise and Resources” document.
The evaluation of relevance will include the degree to which the proposal would use
ULTRASAT to advance Astrophysics, especially any of the Working Groups Science.

D.19-9
Finally, cost reasonableness will be evaluated based on the anonymized Table of Work
Effort.
3.7 Selection of ULTRASAT Participating Scientists
The selection of ULTRASAT Participating Scientist investigations will be made by the
Astrophysics Division of the Science Mission Directorate, with the cognizance of the
ULTRASAT Principal Investigator at the Weizmann Institute for Science, Israel.
4. Summary of Key Information

Expected award amount ~ $70,000 per award year for three years

Number of new awards pending 8-10 funded awards, and up to 14 selected

adequate proposals of merit Participating Scientists with working group
membership and early data access rights

Maximum duration of awards 3 years; shorter term proposals are not accepted.

Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022

propose (NOI)

Due date for full proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022.

Planning date for start of July 1, 2023

investigation

Page limit for the central Science- 6 pages, including references.

Technical-Management section of
the full proposal

Relevance This program is relevant to the Astrophysics

questions and goals in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.

General information and overview See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.

of this solicitation

General requirements for content See D.1 The Astrophysics Research Program
of proposals Overview and Table 1 of ROSES-2022.

Detailed instructions for the See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
submission of proposals the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.

Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no

hard copy is required or permitted.

D.19-10
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Main Point Of Contact
Point of contact for technical
matters regarding ULTRASAT
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-UTASPS
Valerie Connaughton
Program Scientist
Astrophysics Division
Science Mission Directorate
Telephone: (202) 358-1763
Email: valerie.connaughton@nasa.gov
James Rhoads
Astrophysics Science Division
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Email: James.E.Rhoads@nasa.gov
D.19-11
APPENDIX E: BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH PROGRAM
U

E.1 U BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH OVERVIEW U

1. U Introduction
NASA's Biological and Physical Sciences (BPS) program seeks advances in the
biological and physical sciences through space-based research, and studies the
behavior and adaptation of physical processes, living organisms, and ecosystems to
environments beyond Earth, to enable space exploration and pioneer scientific
discovery.
NASA Space Biology and Physical Sciences researchers support the NASA Strategic
Plan Goal 1, to "Expand Human Knowledge Through New Scientific Discoveries" and
Objective 1.2: "Understand Responses of Physical and Biological Systems to
Spaceflight" through experimental research on a wide range of organisms and physical
systems in spaceflight and analog environments, with supporting theory and ground-
based experimental work. NASA Space Biology and Physical Sciences research
priorities and goals in this NRA were set by the 2011 National Academies report
Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a
34TU

New Era , and further defined by the 2017 report A Midterm Assessment of
U34T 34T

Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences Research at

NASA . 34T

Biological and Physical Sciences has two primary components, Space Biology and
Physical Sciences. Four NASA field centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
implement the components of these elements.
Space Biology focuses on the effects of short and long duration spaceflight environment
exposure on the biology of cells, microorganisms, plants, and animals. NASA Space
Biology goals are to: 1) effectively use microgravity and other space environment
characteristics to enhance our understanding of the adaptation and function of basic
biological processes in spaceflight, 2) develop a scientific and technological knowledge
base that will contribute to a safe, productive human presence in space during
exploration, and 3) apply the knowledge and technologies gained to improve our
nation’s competitiveness, education, and the quality of life on Earth. NASA Space
Biology experiments use ISS resources, ground-based microgravity analog systems,
and non-ISS flight platforms to discover how the spaceflight environment impacts
microorganisms, plants, and animals throughout their entire life cycle. Furthermore, it
seeks to understand biological responses through the continuum of gravity, from
microgravity through hypergravity. Space biology science enables NASA to achieve the
goals of fundamental and translational biology research in space that is critical to the
Agency’s exploration and space commercialization missions.
The Physical Sciences Research program conducts experiments in space, in Earth-
based reduced-gravity platforms and ground facilities, and conducts computational and
theoretical investigations, to advance scientific knowledge in the disciplines of physical
science, and to understand the effects of gravity and the space environment on physical
systems. The space environment, defined by the characteristics of near-weightlessness
and high vacuum, enables unique scientific experiments and offers the promise of

E.1-1
economically significant materials processing. Practical consequences of reduced
gravity are manifested through effects including reduced buoyancy-driven convection,
sedimentation, and hydrostatic pressure. Low-gravity experiments have shown how
phenomena that have a small influence in Earth’s gravity can dominate system behavior
in space. As a result, physical interactions in space are often surprising, even
counterintuitive, and can reveal insights into the interaction of forces in dynamic
systems. In addition to the Decadal reports mentioned above, this program has also
received important guidance from earlier National Academies reports, including
Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and
34T

Development of Space and Planetary Bodies (2000), Assessment of Directions in

34T 34T

Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA (2003), and Review of NASA
34T 34T

Plans for the International Space Station (2006).

34T

1.1 Data Management Plans and Archiving

The data management plan (DMP) will be evaluated as part of the Intrinsic Merit of the
proposal and must be included in a special section (see below).
Most proposals to ROSES will require a data management plan (DMP) or an
explanation of why one is not necessary given the nature of the work proposed.
However, even if a DMP is not required with the proposal, then the information needed
to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-reviewed publications resulting from the
award, including data underlying figures, maps, and tables, must be available
electronically at the time of publication, ideally in supplementary material with the article.
Code developed should be made publicly available when it is practical and feasible to
do so, and when there is scientific utility in doing so.
The default presumption is that when a DMP is required, the sufficiency of the data
management plan will be part of Merit and thus may have a bearing on whether or not
the proposal is selected.
The DMP must cover any data needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-
reviewed publications, particularly data underlying figures, maps, and tables. It also
needs to cover any other data and software that would enable future research or the
replication/reproduction of published results.
"Data" does not include preliminary and other unpublished data, data in prepublication
documents, private communications, or certain other types of information that have
been specifically exempted from the DMP requirement.
In the case of a project that would produce no data, as defined above, or only data
specifically exempted, the DMP must state that no data preservation or data sharing is
needed and explain why. In a case where no appropriate archive exists for a particular
data set, the DMP should discuss alternative methods for making the data publicly
available.
The DMP must contain the following elements, as appropriate to the project, in
adequate detail for review:
• A description of data types, volume, formats, and (where relevant) standards;
• A description of the schedule for data archiving and sharing;

E.1-2
 • A description of the intended repositories for archived data, including
mechanisms for public access and distribution;
• A discussion of how the plan enables long-term preservation of data;
• A discussion of roles and responsibilities of team members in accomplishing the
DMP. (If funds are required for data management activities, these should be
covered in the normal budget and budget justification sections of the proposal.)
DMPs will be reviewed as part of the overall NASA research proposal review process.
Proposals that do not address each of these items in their DMP, even if determined to
be selected or selectable for funding, may not be funded. Funded researchers, research
institutions, and NASA centers are responsible for ensuring and demonstrating
compliance with the DMPs approved as part of their awards. Awardees who do not fulfill
the intent of their DMPs may have continuing funds withheld and this may be
considered in the evaluation of future proposals.
For some program elements in ROSES the nature of the work is inexorably linked to the
handling of data so DMP is part of the page limited for Scientific/Technical (S/T) section
of the proposal. If that is the case, the program element will say so explicitly. With the
exception of those elements where it explicitly says otherwise, all proposals to any of
the ROSES elements that require DMPs must place it in a special section of the
proposal, not to exceed two pages in length entitled "Data Management Plan"
immediately following the references and citations for the S/T portion of the proposal.
The two-page DMP section does not count against the 15-page limit of the S/T section.
Formatting requirements for DMPs are the same as for the S/T section.
The DMP must cover any data needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-
reviewed publications, particularly data underlying figures, maps, and tables. It also
needs to cover any other data and software that would enable future research or the
replication/reproduction of published results.
Software, whether a stand-alone program, an enhancement to existing code, or a
module that interfaces with existing codes, created as part of a ROSES award, should
be made publicly available when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when there is
scientific utility in doing so. Stand-alone code that is not straightforward to implement, or
whose utility is significantly outweighed by the costs to share it, is not expected to be
made available. This expectation extends to three types of software, defined as follows:
Short Name Name Description Examples
Libraries Libraries and Generic tools Numerical Recipes, NumPy,
toolkits implementing well-known general FFTs, LAPACK,
algorithms, providing scikit-learn, AstroPy, GDAL
statistical analysis or
visualization, and so on,
that are incorporated in
other software
categories.

E.1-3
 Analysis Analysis, Generalized software
software post- (not low-level libraries)
processing, used to manipulate
or measurements or model
visualization results to visualize or
software gain understanding.
Frameworks Modeling Multicomponent software
frameworks systems that incorporate
a variety of models and
couple them together in a
complex way.
Stand-alone image
processing, topology
analysis, vector-field
analysis, satellite analysis
tools, and so on
Community Earth System
Model (CESM) is a
collection of coupled
models including
atmospheric,
oceanographic, sea ice,
land surface, and other
models

SMD expects that the source code, with associated documentation sufficient to enable
use of the code, will be made publicly available as Open Source Software (OSS) under
an appropriately permissive license (e.g., Apache-2, BSD-3-Clause, GPL). This
0T 0T

includes all software developed with SMD funding used in the production of data
products, as well as software developed to discover, access, visualize, and transform
NASA data. OSS is defined as software that can be accessed, used, modified, and
shared by anyone. Awardees will not be required to continue maintenance of their
software beyond the submission of the software to an appropriate repository. Proposers
should refer to Scientific Information policy (SPD-41) for a summary of expectations
34T 34T

and requirements for the sharing of publications, data, and software produced as part of
ROSES awards.
2. ROSES Structure, Order of Precedence, and Amendments
Each ROSES "Appendix", such as this one, Appendix E for Biological and Physical
Sciences, comprises many "program elements" (listed in Section 3) each of which is a
separate call for proposals with its own topic(s) solicited, due dates, and NSPIRES web
page. The ROSES-2022 program elements in Appendix E are listed below.
What follows are full lists of the BPS program elements separated into Physical
Sciences and Space Biology. Please note that not all program elements are solicited
every year and, even among those that we plan to solicit this year, the final full text may
not be included in ROSES on release in mid-February 2022; it may not be released until
later. Those elements we intend to solicit but are not yet finished will be listed as having
due dates that are "TBD" in Tables 2 (Program Elements ordered by due date) and 3
34T 34T 34T

(Program Elements ordered by Division/Topic) of ROSES-2022. Following the hypertext

34T

links from the titles of these programs in Tables 2 and 3 lead to NSPIRES pages for
each one of these program elements where one can download the full call for proposals
or, if it's not finalized yet, a brief description of the program and a bold notice at the top
will indicate whether the program element is not complete because it is not solicited this
year, or if it is TBD and we intend to solicit. When final text for a program element is
released, or when an entirely new program element is added into ROSES, this is done

E.1-4
as an "amendment" to ROSES. Potential proposers may receive notification of
amendments to ROSES-2022 by signing up for the SMD NSPIRES mailing list (by
checking the appropriate boxes under "Account Management" and "Email
Subscriptions" after logging into NSPIRES), and/or by bookmarking the ROSES-2022
Blog for amendments, clarifications, and corrections at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/ROSES-2022/ , and/or
34T 34T

signing up for the ROSES-2022 due date Google calendars. Instructions are at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/library-and-useful-links .
34T 34T

While Physical Sciences program elements generally correspond to and are focused on
individual topics, the Space Biology generally solicits multiple topics together in a single
program element (see Section 3.1, below). The topics solicited in a BPS program
element, such as space biology, may not cover the full scope of that research area.
Each program element listed below may contain specific requirements that supersede
the common default requirements for all ROSES elements found in the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and the default requirements for all NASA solicitations in the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
The order of precedence is the following: A ROSES Program Element (such as E.2
through E.9) takes precedence, followed by this overview, followed by the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation, and last the Proposer’s Guidebook. Proposers should be
familiar with all of these resources and should especially read each program element
carefully. More information about each of those program elements is given below and
the text of each of these program elements may be found by following the links from the
titles of the elements in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022.
3. Solicited Programs
In Section 3.1 we list the program elements in Physical Sciences and Space Biology,
respectively. Sections 3.2-3.14 describes the research activity within each of the
program elements. In any given year BPS may solicit only specific areas within the
scope of an element.
3.1 Lists of Program Elements
The full list of program elements for Physical Sciences is given below. Please note that
not all program elements are solicited each year. Please refer to Tables 2 and 3 of
ROSES-2022 for an up-to-date listing of what is solicited and when proposals are due.
E.2 Biophysics
E.3 Complex Fluids
E.4 Combustion Science
E.5 Fluid Physics
E.6 Fundamental Physics
E.7 Materials Science
E.8 Physical Sciences Informatics
The full list of program elements for Space Biology is given below. Space Biology is
currently planning three program elements in ROSES-2022. Please refer to Tables 2

E.1-5
and 3 of ROSES-2022 for an up-to-date listing of what is solicited and when proposals
are due.
E.9 Space Biology: Plant Studies
E.10 Space Biology: Animal Studies
E.11 Beyond Low Earth Orbit
3.2 Biophysics
Biophysics is an interdisciplinary science applying physics to the study of biological
systems. Current investigations include protein crystallization, biofilms, and amyloid fibril
formation. Protein crystals grown in space are often more well-ordered than those
grown on Earth. Theory has suggested that the chemical conditions for optimal crystal
growth are different in microgravity. Biofilms have been found to be growing on ISS
surfaces and fluid systems, causing biofouling, corrosion, and contamination. Biofilm
studies will provide important data for developing materials and methods for controlling
biofilm formation to ensure that environmental control systems, water supplies, and
other necessary vehicle systems function properly during long-duration exploration
missions. Amyloid fibril formation in proteins is widely studied because of its role in
diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, as well as its promise for advanced
materials. Extracellular fluid flow effects on protein fibrillization can be studied at fluid
interfaces similar to physiological processes. The absence of gravity allows surface
tension to provide fluid containment so that protein does not interact with solid walls.
The research area of biophysics includes the following themes:
• Biological macromolecules
• Biomaterials and biofilms
• Biological physics
• Biofluids

3.3 Complex Fluids

Complex fluids comprise a large class of soft materials, including colloids,
microemulsions, foams, liquid crystals, and granular material. Studying these systems
focuses on gaining insight into many diverse fields such as phase transitions, nucleation
and crystal growth, coarsening, glass formation, chaos, field theory, and much more.
Furthermore, research in complex fluids provides the underpinnings of translational
research related to NASA’s exploration of planetary surfaces, as well as to terrestrial
applications in industries such as pharmaceutical, chemical, plastics, soap and
detergent, electronic display, and petroleum. The need to conduct research in a
microgravity environment is clear. Because of the relatively large size of the basic
structures, gravitational forces dominate and cause sedimentation, convective flows,
jamming and other property gradients. Weaker forces such as surface tension and
entropic forces are completely masked on Earth. In granular materials, stresses and
yield properties are also sensitive to gravity. For example, microgravity results show that
liquid crystal islands remain suspended on a liquid crystal bubble film, allowing the
dynamic interaction of coarsening to occur, whereas on Earth, the liquid crystal islands
settle at the bottom of the bubble due to sedimentation.

E.1-6
The research area of complex fluids includes the following themes:
• Colloids
• Liquid crystals
• Foams
• Gels
• Granular flows

3.4 Combustion Science

One of the goals of the microgravity combustion science research program is to improve
combustion processes, leading to added benefits to human health, comfort, and safety.
NASA’s microgravity combustion science research focuses on effects that can be
studied in the absence of buoyancy-driven flows caused by Earth’s gravity. Research
conducted without the interference of buoyant flows can lead to an improvement in
combustion efficiency, producing a considerable economic and environmental impact.
Combustion science is also relevant to a range of challenges for long-term human
exploration of space that involve reacting systems in reduced and low gravity. These
challenges include: spacecraft fire prevention; fire detection and suppression; thermal
processing of regolith for oxygen and water production; thermal processing of the
Martian atmosphere for fuel and oxidizer production; and processing of waste and other
organic matter for stabilization and recovery of water, oxygen and carbon. Substantial
progress in any of these areas will be accelerated significantly by an active reduced-
gravity combustion research program.
The research area of combustion science includes the following themes:
• Spacecraft fire safety
• Droplets
• Gaseous – premixed and non-premixed
• High pressure – transcritical combustion and supercritical reacting fluids
• Solid fuels
3.5 Fluid Physics
The goal of the microgravity fluid physics program is to understand fluid behavior of
physical systems in space, providing a foundation for predicting, controlling, and
improving a vast range of technological processes. Specifically, in reduced gravity, the
absence of buoyancy and the stronger influence of capillary forces can have a dramatic
effect on fluid behavior. For example, capillary flows in space can pump fluids to higher
levels than those achieved on Earth. In the case of systems where phase-change heat
transfer is required, experimental results demonstrate that bubbles will not rise under
pool boiling conditions in microgravity, resulting in a change in the heat transfer rate at
the heater surface. The microgravity experimental data can be used to verify
computational fluid dynamics models. These improved models can then be utilized by
future spacecraft designers to predict the performance of fluid conditions in space
exploration systems such as air revitalization, solid waste management, water recovery,
thermal control, cryogenic storage and transfer, energy conversion systems, and liquid
propulsion systems.

E.1-7
The research area of fluid physics includes the following themes:
• Adiabatic two-phase flow
• Boiling and condensation
• Capillary flow
• Interfacial phenomena
• Cryogenic propellant storage and transfer

3.6 Fundamental Physics

Space offers a unique environment for experimental physics in many areas. Current
areas of focus for NASA’s Fundamental Physics program are cold atom physics, the
application of cold atom technologies to research in quantum science and general
relativity, and the physics of dusty plasmas.
A primary objective of NASA's solicitations in Fundamental Physics is to engage the
skills of the U.S. research community to establish and maintain a world-leading program
in space-based quantum science. Quantum physics is a cornerstone of our
understanding of the universe, from cosmology to quantum encryption. The importance
of quantum mechanics is extraordinarily wide ranging, from explaining emergent
phenomena such as superconductivity, to underpinning next-generation technologies
such as quantum computers, quantum communication networks, and quantum
encryption. The NASA Fundamental Physics program will support research in these
areas that will, ideally, lead to transformational outcomes, such as the discovery of
phenomena at the intersection of quantum mechanics and general relativity that inform
a unified theory, the direct detection of dark matter via atom interferometry or atomic
clocks, and creating and studying exotic quantum matter than cannot exist on Earth.
Research in dusty or complex plasmas forms a second, currently smaller thrust for the
Fundamental Physics program. Typically using ISS facilities developed by our
international partners, this research has three primary areas of interest. The first is the
microscopic properties of complex plasmas. This involves studying forces on particles,
particle charging, and processes of particle agglomeration and growth in complex
plasmas. Macroscopic properties of complex plasmas is a second area of research.
Plasma hydrodynamics, thermodynamics, and self-organization are representative
subjects in this area. The third research area is properties of many-body systems.
Complex plasmas are an attractive model system for many questions in condensed
matter physics, including crystallization and melting, phonon transport, and turbulence.
Focus areas for research in fundamental physics:
• Quantum coherence and entanglement
• Quantum interferometry and precision measurements
• Properties of quantum matter
• Quantum phenomena in many-body systems
• Microscopic and macroscopic properties of dusty or complex plasmas
3.7 Materials Science
The goal of the microgravity materials science program is to improve the understanding
of materials properties that will enable the development of higher-performing materials

E.1-8
and processes for use both in space and on Earth. The program takes advantage of the
unique features of the microgravity environment, where gravity-driven phenomena, such
as sedimentation and thermosolutal convection, are nearly negligible. On Earth, natural
convection leads to dendrite deformation and clustering, whereas in microgravity, in the
absence of buoyant flow, the dendritic structure is nearly uniform. Major types of
research that can be investigated include solidification effects and the resulting
morphology, as well as accurate and precise measurement of thermophysical property
data. These data can be used to develop computational models. The ability to predict
microstructures accurately is a promising computational tool for advancing materials
science and manufacturing.
The research area of materials science includes the following themes:
• Glasses and ceramics
• Granular materials
• Metals
• Polymers and organics
• Semiconductors

3.8 Physical Sciences Informatics

The Physical Sciences Informatics (PSI) system ( https://www.nasa.gov/PSI ), is an
34T 34T

online database of completed physical science reduced-gravity flight experiments

conducted on the International Space Station (ISS), Space Shuttle flights, Free Flyers,
or commercial cargo flights to and from the ISS, and from related ground-based studies.
The goals of PSI are to: a) promote investigations making use of currently available
experimental data resulting in more scientists participating in reduced-gravity research;
b) allow new areas of research and discovery to occur more quickly through open
access; and c) accelerate the "research to product or publication" timeline through the
rapid sharing of data. The PSI system allows researchers access to the detailed
experimental data obtained from flight research conducted as part of NASA's Physical
Sciences Research Program.
3.9 Space Biology: Plant Studies
This program element will solicit proposals for plant and/or plant-microbial interaction
studies that characterize the physiological/molecular responses of individual and
multiple plant species to multiple stressors encountered in the space-flight environment.
The Space Biology Program solicits and funds research that will increase NASA’s
understanding of how living systems respond to the unique environments that are
encountered during space exploration, including the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) environment
inside the International Space Station (ISS) and deep space conditions beyond LEO,
including transit to and maintenance in Lunar and Martian environments. More
information about the Space Biology Program can be found at:
https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/programs/space-biology . The framework
34T 34T

for the Space Biology Program is described in its Science Plan (2016-2025) .
34T 34T

3.10 Space Biology: Animal Studies

Animal Biology studies are designed to understand the basic mechanisms animals use
to adapt to the spaceflight environment, to alterations in gravity in general, and to

E.1-9
contribute basic knowledge of biological adaptation to spaceflight in order to accelerate
solutions to biomedical problems affecting human exploration of space as well as
human health on Earth. This Program Element studies invertebrate and vertebrate
species. Critical unanswered questions include "How does the space environment affect
basic physiological functions and the applicable regulatory mechanisms and pathways,
e.g., sensory-motor control, behavior, vision, metabolism, organ structure and function,
aging and lifespan?" and "Is there a gravity level threshold (force and duration) that can
mitigate the biological effects of microgravity?" The Space Biology Program solicits and
funds research that will increase NASA’s understanding of how living systems respond
to the unique environments that are encountered during space exploration, including the
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) environment inside the International Space Station (ISS) and
deep space conditions beyond LEO, including transit to and maintenance in Lunar and
Martian environments. More information about the Space Biology Program can be found
at: https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/programs/space-biology . The framework
34T 3 4T

for the Space Biology Program is described in its Science Plan (2016-2025) .
34T 34T

3.11 Space Biology: Beyond Low-Earth Orbit

Through this program element, Space Biology will solicit proposals for experiments to
understand the impacts of the deep space environment on biological systems.
Research in this area could progress from using relatively simple model systems to
those of higher physiological complexity, depending on available spaceflight platforms.
The Space Biology Program solicits and funds research that will increase NASA’s
understanding of how living systems respond to the unique environments that are
encountered during space exploration, including the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) environment
inside the International Space Station (ISS) and deep space conditions beyond LEO,
including transit to and maintenance in Lunar and Martian environments. More
information about the Space Biology Program can be found at:
https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/programs/space-biology . The framework
34T 34T

for the Space Biology Program is described in its Science Plan (2016-2025) .
34T 34T

E.1-10
E.2 U BIOPHYSICS
NOTICE: This program element will not be solicited in ROSES this
year.
1. U Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
Biophysics is an interdisciplinary science applying physics to the study of biological
systems. Current investigations include protein crystallization, biofilms, and amyloid fibril
formation. Protein crystals grown in space are often more well-ordered than those
grown on Earth. Theory has suggested that the chemical conditions for optimal crystal
growth are different in microgravity. Biofilms have been found to be growing on ISS
surfaces and fluid systems, causing biofouling, corrosion, and contamination. Biofilm
studies will provide important data for developing materials and methods for controlling
biofilm formation to ensure that environmental control systems, water supplies, and
other necessary vehicle systems function properly during long-duration exploration
missions. Amyloid fibril formation in proteins is widely studied because of its role in
diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, as well as its promise for advanced
materials. Extracellular fluid flow effects on protein fibrillization can be studied at fluid
interfaces similar to physiological processes. The absence of gravity allows surface
tension to provide fluid containment so that protein does not interact with solid walls.
The research area of biophysics includes the following themes:
• Biological macromolecules
• Biomaterials and biofilms
• Biological physics
• Biofluids

2. Points of Contact
U

Questions regarding this program element should be directed to Francis Chiaramonte

at francis.p.chiaramonte@nasa.gov and BPS-PhysicalSciences@nasaprs.com.
U U

E.2-1
E.3 U COMPLEX FLUIDS
NOTICE: Amended March 21, 2022. As a result of budget reduction,
this program will not be solicited this year.
1. U Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
Complex fluids comprise a large class of soft materials, including colloids,
microemulsions, foams, liquid crystals, and granular material. Studying these systems
focuses on gaining insight into many diverse fields such as phase transitions, nucleation
and crystal growth, coarsening, glass formation, chaos, field theory, and much more.
Furthermore, research in complex fluids provides the underpinnings of translational
research related to NASA’s exploration of planetary surfaces, as well as to terrestrial
applications in industries such as pharmaceutical, chemical, plastics, soap and
detergent, electronic display, and petroleum. The need to conduct research in a
microgravity environment is clear. Because of the relatively large size of the basic
structures, gravitational forces dominate and cause sedimentation, convective flows,
jamming and other property gradients. Weaker forces such as surface tension and
entropic forces are completely masked on Earth. In granular materials, stresses and
yield properties are also sensitive to gravity. For example, microgravity results show that
liquid crystal islands remain suspended on a liquid crystal bubble film, allowing the
dynamic interaction of coarsening to occur, whereas on Earth, the liquid crystal islands
settle at the bottom of the bubble due to sedimentation.
The research area of complex fluids includes the following themes:
• Colloids
• Liquid crystals
• Foams
• Gels
• Granular flows

2. Points of Contact
U

Questions regarding this program element should be directed to Bradley Carpenter at

bcarpenter@nasa.gov and BPS-PhysicalSciences@nasaprs.com.
29TU U29T

E.3-1
E.4 U COMBUSTION SCIENCE
NOTICE: This program element will not be solicited in ROSES this
year.
1. U Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
One of the goals of the microgravity combustion science research program is to improve
combustion processes, leading to added benefits to human health, comfort, and safety.
NASA’s microgravity combustion science research focuses on effects that can be
studied in the absence of buoyancy-driven flows caused by Earth’s gravity. Research
conducted without the interference of buoyant flows can lead to an improvement in
combustion efficiency, producing a considerable economic and environmental impact.
Combustion science is also relevant to a range of challenges for long-term human
exploration of space that involve reacting systems in reduced and low gravity. These
challenges include: spacecraft fire prevention; fire detection and suppression; thermal
processing of regolith for oxygen and water production; thermal processing of the
Martian atmosphere for fuel and oxidizer production; and processing of waste and other
organic matter for stabilization and recovery of water, oxygen and carbon. Substantial
progress in any of these areas will be accelerated significantly by an active reduced-
gravity combustion research program.
The research area of combustion science includes the following themes:
• Spacecraft fire safety
• Droplets
• Gaseous – premixed and non-premixed
• High pressure – transcritical combustion and supercritical reacting fluids
• Solid fuels

2. Points of Contact
U

Questions regarding this program element should be directed to Francis Chiaramonte

at francis.p.chiaramonte@nasa.gov and BPS-PhysicalSciences@nasaprs.com.
U U

E.4-1
E.5 U FLUIDS PHYSICS
NOTICE: This program element will not be solicited in ROSES this
year.
1. U Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
The goal of the microgravity fluid physics program is to understand fluid behavior of
physical systems in space, providing a foundation for predicting, controlling, and
improving a vast range of technological processes. Specifically, in reduced gravity, the
absence of buoyancy and the stronger influence of capillary forces can have a dramatic
effect on fluid behavior. For example, capillary flows in space can pump fluids to higher
levels than those achieved on Earth. In the case of systems where phase-change heat
transfer is required, experimental results demonstrate that bubbles will not rise under
pool boiling conditions in microgravity, resulting in a change in the heat transfer rate at
the heater surface. The microgravity experimental data can be used to verify
computational fluid dynamics models. These improved models can then be utilized by
future spacecraft designers to predict the performance of fluid conditions in space
exploration systems such as air revitalization, solid waste management, water recovery,
thermal control, cryogenic storage and transfer, energy conversion systems, and liquid
propulsion systems.
The research area of fluid physics includes the following themes:
• Adiabatic two-phase flow
• Boiling and condensation
• Capillary flow
• Interfacial phenomena
• Cryogenic propellant storage and transfer

2. Points of Contact
U

Questions regarding this program element should be directed to Francis Chiaramonte

at francis.p.chiaramonte@nasa.gov and BPS-PhysicalSciences@nasaprs.com.
U U

E.5-1
E.6 FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS
NOTICE: Amended June 17. This amendment releases the final text
and due dates for this program element, which had previously been
listed as TBD. Proposals to this program element will be submitted by
a two-step process in which the Notice of Intent is replaced by a
mandatory Step-1 proposal that must be submitted by an organization
Authorized Organizational Representative. Only proposers who
submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal.
Step-1 Proposals are due July 19, 2022, and Step-2 Proposals are due
September 16, 2022.
1. Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
The NASA Fundamental Physics program within the Biological and Physical Sciences
(BPS) Division of the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) identifies and develops
concepts for transformative applications of the space environment to advance the
boundaries of experimental physics. Since at least the early 1950’s, physicists have
been giving thought to experiments uniquely possible in space. Most of these
experiments have used the free-falling environment of Earth-orbiting vehicles to conduct
experiments under nearly gravity-free conditions, but more recently concepts have
emerged that use the vacuum of space to send entangled photons over long distances.
In the primary focus of the current program, quantum phenomena with ultracold atoms,
the near absence of gravity allows atom clouds to be positioned with minimal applied
forces, allowing (in principle) for colder atoms, larger atomic de Broglie wavelengths,
and potentially stronger, cleaner, and more scientifically interesting interactions than is
possible using equivalent Earth-based atom traps. Space-based experiments also offer
the possibility of longer observation times than is possible on Earth, a huge advantage
in experiments involving atom interferometry, where experimental accuracy scales with
the square of the observation time. The Cold Atom Laboratory (CAL) aboard the
International Space Station (ISS) currently supports an active research program in
ultracold atomic matter. NASA is working closely with the German Space Agency, DLR,
to develop a follow-on instrument expected to be available in 2026-27.
This program element of SMD’s ROSES-2022 solicitation, seeks proposals for flight
experiments to be performed using the CAL facility beginning as soon as late 2024, and
proposals for ground-based research, both theory and experiment, to identify and
develop the foundation for future space-based experiments. All proposers are
encouraged to read the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, to learn the default
guidelines. The default content and format of proposals are described in Section IV(b)
and Table 1 of ROSES-2022. Some of these defaults are modified in the sections
below. In the cases of any conflicts, this program element takes precedence, followed
by the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, and last the 2022 NASA Guidebook for
Proposers. Statutes and regulations always apply and take precedence over any
solicitation or guidance.

E.6-1
2. Fundamental Physics in the Biological and Physical Sciences Division
Fundamental Physics in the Biological and Physical Sciences Division seeks
transformative opportunities for experimental physics, using space as a laboratory to
conduct research that is uniquely enabled in space. Following guidance and
recommendations from the research community, including the 2011 Decadal Survey,
Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a
New Era, historical focus areas for the program include critical phenomena in
condensed matter (in which microgravity enables experiments with systems that
collapse near critical points under gravity) and tests of the Equivalence Principle, the
assumption of exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass that is required by
the theory of General Relativity, but is violated at the level of ~10-18 in theories that
attempt to unify the four fundamental forces and elementary particles within a common
model. Potential future focus areas for Fundamental Physics include using the
unparalleled precision available through quantum-based time/frequency metrology
(using cold atom technologies, time can be measured roughly nine orders of magnitude
more precisely than any other base SI unit) to find new clues in the search for the next
step beyond the Standard Model of physics, and experiments in quantum optics that will
probe the gravitational and causal interaction of quantum systems with space-time
structures, with the goal of illuminating potential paths forward in understanding the
relationship between two pillars of physics, quantum mechanics and General Relativity.
These areas of potential future research investment are being assessed by the Decadal
Survey on Life and Physical Sciences Research in Space 2023-2032 currently
underway, and may be included in future Fundamental Physics solicitations if they are
given priority in Decadal recommendations.
3. Proposals Sought by this Program Element
This program element seeks proposals in two categories. The first category is flight
experiments to be performed with the Cold Atom Laboratory (CAL) facility aboard the
International Space Station, presented in Section 3.1. The second category of proposals
sought is ground-based theory and experimental research that supports the
development of concepts for future space experiments with ultracold atoms, discussed
in Section 3.2.
3.1 Proposals for Flight Experiments
This proposal category is for flight research on ultra-cold atoms and degenerate
quantum gases using CAL aboard the International Space Station. Selected proposals
are expected to be funded for activities lasting 4-5 years. It is expected that these
activities will include the conduct of any needed initial ground research that will aid the
design and implementation of the flight investigation. Flight investigators will work
closely with the NASA JPL CAL team during the flight experiment phase. The flight
investigation will have to be consistent with the existing capabilities of the CAL flight
system, though minor modifications to the design suggested by PIs may be
accommodated to the extent feasible and depending upon the availability of agency
resources. Details of the CAL system and capabilities are described below. The flight
experiment proposal must clearly justify the need for microgravity and the capability
afforded by the CAL facility on the International Space Station. Flight experiment

E.6-2
proposals are strongly encouraged to establish that the proposed experiments are
within the capabilities of the facility (see Section 3.1.1 and the CAL website).
PIs funded through this program element will become members of the CAL Science
Team and will participate in meaningful ways in the overall CAL project, including
providing advice and guidance for optimizing the hardware design, prioritizing potential
upgrades to the facility, developing data analysis methodology, implementing
experiments on the ISS, and participating in operational and data analysis activities.
Suitable additional roles of participants could include performing independent
experimental and theoretical research in areas contributing to the overall scientific
objectives; technology maturation activities; trade studies; and independent checks of
data. The CAL engineering test bed at JPL contains an apparatus that is as functionally
equivalent to the CAL flight facility as possible. It will be made available on a limited
basis to flight investigators who require, for example, to explore new test experimental
sequences, or who wish to perform control experiments to compare the effects of
terrestrial gravity to the ISS microgravity environment. Research on the JPL engineering
test bed will be performed in conjunction with and coordinated by the JPL Engineering
Test Bed Lead.
NASA’s Cold Atom Lab is designed to be a compact, atom-chip based apparatus,
capable of trapping both rubidium (87Rb) and potassium gases (either 39K or 41K), and of
producing degenerate gases of each species, or of mixtures of Rb and either of the K
isotopes, after a few seconds of collection and cooling. The atom chip approach is
chosen to provide multiple trapping geometries while supporting the power and volume
constraints of the ISS. Serving as a multi-user facility for the fundamental physics
community, CAL incorporates a toolbox of capabilities including multi-axis, dual-species
imaging, externally applied magnetic fields for accessing interspecies and intraspecies
Feshbach resonances, and optical lattice potentials for Bragg atom interferometry.
3.1.1 Summary of Cold Atom Lab Mission Capabilities
• CAL serves as a multi-user facility for the study of ultra-cold quantum gases in
the microgravity environment of the International Space Station;
• CAL enables the study of 87Rb, 41K and 39K, and interactions between mixtures of
Rb and either of the K isotopes;
• CAL utilizes delta-kick and adiabatic decompression cooling techniques to
produce samples with residual kinetic energy below 100 pK and free expansion
times of seconds;
• CAL studies the properties of 87Rb, 41K, and 39K quantum gases in the presence
of external magnetic fields tuned near interspecies and single species Feshbach
resonances.
For all experiments, it is assumed that standard absorption imaging will be utilized for
each species. Preparations of samples of atoms in arbitrary mixtures of hyperfine states
and Zeeman sublevels are facilitated by applied microwave and/or RF pulses and
sweeps. Table A gives a high-level summary of the science capabilities of the CAL
facility. Additional information on the CAL project can be found at the CAL website
(http://coldatomlab.jpl.nasa.gov).

E.6-3
 Table A: Performance Specifications of the CAL facility
Item Subsystem Science Requirement
87Rb, 41K, and 39K
1 Atom Source
Simultaneous trapping of 87Rb and 41K or 87Rb and 39K
1.1 in a magnetic trap
Bose-Einstein condensates with greater than 10000
1.2 condensed 87Rb atoms
Greater than 15000 41K atoms at a phase space
1.3 density of one-half of that needed for Bose-Einstein
condensation
Sympathetic cooling a gas of greater than 40000 39K
1.5
atoms to temperatures below 1 microKelvin
A mixture with greater than 8000 atoms of 41K and
1.6 greater than 10000 atoms of 87Rb at the onset of Bose
Einstein condensation
Observation
2
Time
Ultracold sample of atoms (temperature below 10 nK)
2.2 with a lifetime in the magnetic trap greater than 3 s
Imaging atoms during free expansion at any time from
2.3 0 to at least 1 second
Support delta-kick cooling to residual kinetic energies
2.4 corresponding to 100 pK for 87Rb
Detection
3
System
Camera system for imaging of gases through a window
3.1 in the atom chip with approximately 2.0 µm/pixel and
resolution below 20 µm
Camera system for imaging of gases through a window
3.2 parallel to the atom chip with approximately 4.0
µm/pixel and resolution below 20 µm
4 State Selection
Capable of coherently transferring > 80% of 87Rb, 39K,
4.1
and 41K atoms to a non-magnetic m = 0 state
Capable of coherently transferring > 90% of 87Rb, 39K,
4.2
and 41K atoms between hyperfine states
Environmental
5
control
CAL facility shall be capable of applying a DC
magnetic field from 0 to > 90G for up to 2 seconds,
5.1 suitable for accessing 41K-87Rb and 39K-39K Feshbach
resonances in the science region (within a 2mm cube
containing atom chip trap as one face)
Feshbach magnetic field shall be capable of switching
5.2
>2 G in less than 1 ms
Loop emitter for single-tone or multi-tone RF emission
5.3
spanning 0 to 80 MHz

E.6-4
 Loop emitter for radiating single-tone UHF spanning 5
5.4
MHz to 500 MHz
Loop emitter for multi-tone microwave emission with
5.5 the carrier tunable from 6800 MHz to 7040 MHz and
sideband spanning 0 to 300 MHz
Atom
6
Interferometry
CAL shall incorporate a capability to deliver Bragg
pulses of up to 3 Er (with Er the Rb recoil energy) with
6.1
1mm +/- 0.2mm diameter beam at 785nm with
durations from 0.1 to 5 ms
At-least three coherent frequencies written onto the
6.2 Bragg beam separated by tunable difference
frequencies between 10 and 100 kHz
In-flight data
7
deliverable
CAL facility shall provide science data to the
7.1 instrument operator within 1 minute of acquisition
during "near real-time" operations mode
3.2 Proposals for Ground-Based Research
Ground-based research is supported in order to identify and refine concepts for unique
contributions to advances in atomic physics possible through space experiments, and to
provide a context for interpretation of experimental results.
Space-based cold atom research offers, in theory, important advantages over Earth-
based experiments. Near-zero gravity effectively eliminates density stratification in
quantum gases with condensates, as well as allowing atom clouds to be held with
extremely weak traps. Experiments with cold atoms in novel topological situations are
also possible. These capabilities enable the study of important problems in few- and
many-body physics at picokelvin temperatures. Proposals are sought for ground-based
experimental and theory-based research that will contribute to the definition of future
space-based experiments by identifying significant questions that are beyond the
capabilities of practical Earth-based experiments, but may be addressed through space-
based experiments. Potential areas of interest include the nature and the limits of
quantum universality in few-body interactions, quantum phase transitions, and
topological states of quantum matter. The program objective with this effort is to find
and develop opportunities to make transformative, paradigm-shifting advances in
physics through space-based experiments.
4. Two-Step Proposal Submission
This program element will use a two-step submission process described in Section
IV(b)vii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. The Step-1 proposal is a
prerequisite for submission of a full Step-2 proposal, but it does not obligate offerors to
submit a Step-2 proposal later. Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are
eligible to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal. Proposals submitted after the deadline on the

E.6-5
proposal due date will be considered late and may be rejected without review (see SMD
Policy on Late Proposals).
5. Proposal Content
5.1 Step-1 Proposal
Proposers may use either NSPIRES (https://nspires.nasaprs.com) or Grants.gov
(https://grants.gov) for Step-1 proposal submission. Regardless of the electronic
submission system used for Step-1 proposals, all proposers, team members,
organization officials, and the submitting organization must be registered with NSPIRES
before Step-1 proposal submission.
All Step-1 proposals must include the appropriate required electronic forms available
through either of the two proposal submission systems, NSPIRES or Grants.gov.
Instructions for completing the proposal Cover Page form are specific to the electronic
proposal submission system used by the proposer (NSPIRES or Grants.gov). Please
note that the Proposal Summary, Business Data, Proposal Team, and answers to
Program Specific Data questions are required Cover Page Elements for a Step-1
proposal.
The Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section of a Step-1 proposal is restricted
to the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on the NSPIRES web interface cover
pages. Grants.gov users must also abide by this limit. If Grants.gov does not impose
this limit on the length of the Proposal Summary, the Summary will still be truncated to
4,000 characters when the proposal is transmitted from Grants.gov to NSPIRES. No
budget is submitted with a Step-1 proposal, nor will any other PDF attachments be
accepted for Step-1 proposals.
Step-1 proposals must be submitted by an Authorized Organizational Representative
(AOR) and are due by the date given in See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
5.2 Step-2 Proposal
Step-2 proposals must be submitted via NSPIRES (https://nspires.nasaprs.com). The
NSPIRES system will guide proposers through submission of all required proposal
information. Select "prior-phase proposal" when creating a Step-2 proposal. This will
automatically transfer the proposal information from the Step-1 proposal to the Step-2
proposal. Proposal team members carried over from a Step-1 proposal may need to
login and re-confirm their affiliation and participation on the proposal. Team members
may be changed between Step-1 and Step-2 proposals. Proposers not familiar with the
2-step proposal submission process should refer to the Step-2 instructions under “other
documents” on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
The Step-2 proposals consist of electronic forms (i.e., the NSPIRES cover page; see
Section 5.2.1 below) and two attachments: Proposal Document (see Section 5.2.2
below) and Total Budget (see Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation). Also, if requesting optional high-end computing (HEC) time, one must
upload a HEC form as a separate appendix.
Step-2 proposals are due by the date given in Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.

E.6-6
 5.2.1 Proposal Cover Page
Proposers must fill out the NSPIRES Proposal Cover Pages, as described in Section
IV(b)iv of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and Section 2.8 of the 2022 NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. Thereafter, this information will be automatically included with
the proposal and thus this information need not be repeated or otherwise attached
again to the proposal document. The NSPIRES cover page budget information that is
expected to contain salary, fringe, and overhead information will be automatically
redacted so it is not seen by peer reviewers. See the ROSES FAQ on redaction.
5.2.2 Step-2 Proposal Document
All proposals must include a Proposal Document consisting of the 15-page
Scientific/Technical/Management Project Description section and all other required
elements described herein. The Document must include the sections listed in Table B
below, in the order listed, as one searchable, unlocked PDF file. If any required sections
are missing from the Proposal Document, the proposal may be declared non-compliant
and declined without review. No additional sections/appendices beyond what is
specified in Table B are allowed, with the following exception: a Title Page that states
the name of the proposal and the proposing organization maybe be included in the
proposal. The Title Page may include project or organization logos but shall not include
additional proposal information such as abstracts. The page may be used to provide
statements regarding proprietary information and/or export control. Proposals that
exceed page limits, contain extra sections that are not specifically requested or allowed
by this program element, or violate formatting rules described in Table 1 of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation may be declared noncompliant and returned without
review.
See Table 1 of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation for the basic requirements
and restrictions on the contents and format of the Proposal Document. Exceptions of
the requirements from Table 1 are described below.
Table B: Required Elements for Proposal Document
Section Section Page Limit Reference for More
Number Information
1 Table of Contents 1 page Table 1 of ROSES-
maximum 2022
2 Summary Chart 1 page See below
maximum
3 Scientific/Technical/Management 15 pages See below
(Project Description) maximum
4 References no page limit Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
5 Data Management Plan 2 pages See below
maximum
6 Biographical Sketches/ 2 pages for Table 1 of ROSES-
Curriculum Vitae (CVs) PI, 1 page for 2022
others

E.6-7
 7 Table of Personnel and Work no page limit Section IV(b)iii and
Effort Table 1 of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of
Solicitation
8 Current and Pending Support no page limit Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
9 Letters of Support no page limit Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
10 Budget no page limit Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
11 Facilities and Equipment no page limit Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
• Summary Chart: A single-page Summary Chart must be included to summarize the
main points of the proposal. The chart will be used to represent the proposal during
the review process. The chart is intended to provide a quick sense of the proposed
effort and should stand alone (i.e., not require the full proposal to be understood). It
must not include any proprietary or export-controlled data, as NASA may make the
Summary Charts of selected proposals available to the public after selections are
announced. Proposal submission, in accordance with this requirement, will indicate
the proposer’s consent to public release of the Summary Chart. The Summary Chart
should be included in landscape format, should occupy the entire page (except for
margins), and shall not exceed one page. A template of a suitable Summary Chart is
available on the NSPIRES webpage for this program element.
• Scientific/Technical/Management (Project Description): The length of the
Scientific/Technical/Management section of the proposal shall not exceed 15 pages.
The format (margins, etc.) of this section must follow the guidelines provided in
Table 1 of ROSES-2022. The proposal shall contain sufficient detail to enable
reviewers to make informed judgments about the overall merit of the proposed
research and about the probability that the investigators will be able to accomplish
their stated objectives with current resources and the resources requested. The
hypotheses and specific aims of the proposed research shall be clearly stated. The
proposed research plan and science objectives from all participants, including any
international team members, must be included in the submitted proposal. The
project description also must include a general implementation plan that includes the
management structure for the proposal personnel. Reviewers will not consider any
material that exceeds the page limit for the project description. Cited literature and
all other proposal sections are not considered part of the page limit for the project
description. Reviewers are not required to view and/or consider external references,
including referenced websites, in their evaluation of the proposal.
• Data Management Plan: A Data Management Plan (DMP) of up to 2-pages must be
included in the Proposal Document immediately following the references/citations for
the S/T/M section. Requirements of the DMP are described in Section II(c) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and in Section 1.1 of ROSES-2022 Appendix
E – Biological and Physical Sciences Research Overview. A template of a suitable

E.6-8
 DMP for this program element is available on the NSPIRES webpage for this
program element.
6. Review and Selection Process
6.1 Step-1 Proposal Relevance Review
Each Step-1 proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is “relevant”
or “not relevant” to the topics solicited. To be relevant, the proposal must be consistent
with the research emphases described in Section 2 of this program element. Proposers
will be informed via NSPIRES whether their proposal has been encouraged or
discouraged. Whether or not the Step-1 proposal is encouraged or discouraged,
proposers who submitted a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a Step-2 proposal.
6.2 Step-2 Proposal Compliance Review
NASA will conduct an Administrative Review of all Step-2 proposals to prescreen them
for compliance with the requirements of this program element. See Section 4.1 of the
2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022 Summary
of Solicitation for more information. Non-compliant proposals may be declined without
further review.
6.3 Step-2 Proposal Peer Review Evaluation Criteria
Compliant Step-2 proposals will undergo review as described in Section V of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and Section 4.2 of the 2022 NASA Guidebook for
Proposers . The proposals will be evaluated on three criteria defined in Appendix D of
the 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers: intrinsic merit, relevance, and cost.
A panel of scientific and/or technical subject matter experts will evaluate the intrinsic
merit of the proposals. This panel of experts may include non-NASA and other non-
Government personnel. The number and diversity of experts required will be determined
by the response to this program element. The intrinsic merit of the proposals will be
evaluated according to the four factors described in Appendix D of the 2022 NASA
Guidebook for Proposers.
6.4 Step-2 Proposal NASA Technical Feasibility, Cost, and Relevance Review
Proposals receiving an intrinsic science/technical merit score in the fundable range will
be reviewed by NASA to evaluate the technical feasibility, cost, and relevance of the
proposed effort. The evaluation of technical feasibility and cost of proposals for flight
experiments will be conducted by NASA program scientists and a team of engineers
and scientists experienced in the development, integration, and operation of spaceflight
experiments.
The evaluation of technical feasibility considers whether the proposed effort is
technically feasible to implement with the available hardware. The evaluation of the cost
of a proposed effort includes consideration of the reasonableness of the proposed cost
and the relationship of the proposed cost to available funds.
As part of the evaluation of relevance, NASA will consider several factors, including
relevance to the goals and/or objectives of this program element, strategic relevance
and alignment, and portfolio balance. Proposals that enable exploration or pioneer

E.6-9
scientific discovery will have strong program alignment. The evaluation of the strategic
relevance also includes consideration of microgravity relevance, i.e., the extent to which
the proposed research is enabled by the unique characteristics of the microgravity
environment or supports research in the space environment.
While the most important factor in the evaluation process is intrinsic merit, all evaluation
criteria are taken into consideration when making final selections. Deficiencies in any
one of these criteria or factors within criteria may prevent the selection of a proposal.
6.5 Selection
Selection procedures will be consistent with the procedures identified in Section V(b) of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and Appendix D of the 2022 NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. The Selection Official for this program element will be the
Director of the SMD Biological and Physical Sciences Division.
7. Post-Award Program Reporting/Individual Researcher Reporting
In addition to the standard annual technical reporting for grants, described in Sections
II(c) and VI(c) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, recipients of awards made
through this program element are subject to the following reporting requirements.
7.1 Annual Reporting and Task Book Reporting
The PI shall provide an annual written report to NASA on or before the anniversary of
the start of funding. This information will be used to assess the degree of progress of
the project. This information will consist primarily of:
• An abstract;
• A bibliographic list of publications;
• Copies of publications;
• A statement of progress, including a comparison with the originally proposed work
schedule, including progress on archiving of data, see Section 7.3.
A component of the annual report will be used for the NASA Task Book
(https://taskbook.nasaprs.com/). The Task Book includes descriptions of all peer-
reviewed Life and Physical Sciences activities funded by NASA's Biological and
Physical Sciences Division. The Task Book is an invaluable source of information for
NASA biological, biomedical, and physical sciences researchers, as well as the external
scientific and technical communities.
7.2 Final Report
A final report must be provided to NASA at the end of the award funding period,
including a detailed listing of all peer-reviewed publications. This information will consist
primarily of:
• Statement of the specific objectives;
• Significance of the work;
• Background;
• Overall progress during the performance period;
• Narrative discussion of technical approaches including problems encountered;
• Accomplishments related to approach;

E.6-10
• An appendix with bibliography.
Any publications or other public materials containing data are particularly important to
include in the report.
7.3 Providing Data to the NASA Physical Sciences Informatics System
All awardees must upload data produced from this research into the PSI system
(https://www.nasa.gov/PSI) by the end of the award period. Data input must conform to
the PSI data submission requirements document that resides in the PSI system; NASA
will provide specific data input procedures at a later date. The required data include: the
raw experimental data in a machine-readable textual or numerical form, digital images
and video; analyzed or reduced data prepared by the experiment’s PI; and supporting
data including NASA reports, science requirements, experiment design and engineering
data (including applicable drawings), any new analytical or numerical models, tools, or
software developed as part of the research, references to publications and patents, and
description of any commercial applications developed as a result of the research.
Additional requirements on data and software deliverables are described in Section 1.1
of E.1 the Biological and Physical Sciences Research Overview and Section II(c) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
8. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget for Approximately $2M/yr
new awards
Anticipated number of new awards From 5-7 ground-based awards at $150-
pending adequate proposals of merit 250K/yr and 2-3 flight awards at $200-
400K/yr. Deviations from these targeted
figures are possible.
Maximum duration of awards Ground-based awards are for a maximum of
three years. Flight awards are planned for
five years.
Due Date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due Date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of investigation March 2023
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management 15 pages
section of Step-2 proposal
Relevance This Program Element is relevant to
Objective 1.2 of NASA's 2022 Strategic Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program
element are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
this solicitation Solicitation
General requirements for content of See Section 5 and Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
proposals

E.6-11
Detailed instructions for the
preparation and submission of
proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposal
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
Program
See Sections 3-5 of this program element,
Sections 2.22-3.4 of the 2022 NASA
Guidebook for Proposers and Section IV(b)
of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hardcopy or email copy is allowed.
https://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-FP
Brad Carpenter
Biological and Physical Sciences Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: bcarpenter@nasa.gov
and NASA-FP@nasaprs.com
E.6-12
E.7 U MATERIALS SCIENCE
NOTICE: This program element will not be solicited in ROSES this
year.
1. U Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
The goal of the microgravity materials science program is to improve the understanding
of materials properties that will enable the development of higher-performing materials
and processes for use both in space and on Earth. The program takes advantage of the
unique features of the microgravity environment, where gravity-driven phenomena, such
as sedimentation and thermosolutal convection, are nearly negligible. On Earth, natural
convection leads to dendrite deformation and clustering, whereas in microgravity, in the
absence of buoyant flow, the dendritic structure is nearly uniform. Major types of
research that can be investigated include solidification effects and the resulting
morphology, as well as accurate and precise measurement of thermophysical property
data. These data can be used to develop computational models. The ability to predict
microstructures accurately is a promising computational tool for advancing materials
science and manufacturing.
The research area of materials science includes the following themes:
• Glasses and ceramics
• Granular materials
• Metals
• Polymers and organics
• Semiconductors

2. U Points of Contact
Questions regarding this program element should be directed to Francis Chiaramonte
at Francis.p.chiaramonte@nasa.gov and BPS-PhysicalSciences@nasaprs.com.
U U

E.7-1
E.8 PHYSICAL SCIENCES INFORMATICS
NOTICE: Amended September 15, 2022. This amendment releases the
final text for this program element which was previously "TBD".
Optional notices of intent to propose are requested by October 31,
2022, and the due date for proposals is January 10, 2023.
The main S/T/M section of proposals is limited to 10 pages. See Table
B in Subsection 3.2.2 for all components of the proposal and
corresponding page limits. This program element does not participate
in the NASA-Provided high-end computing program.
1. Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
The Physical Sciences Informatics (PSI) system (https://www.nasa.gov/PSI) is an online
database of completed physical science reduced-gravity flight experiments conducted
on the International Space Station (ISS), Space Shuttle flights, Free Flyers, or
commercial cargo flights to and from the ISS, and of related ground-based studies. The
goals of the PSI system are to: a) promote investigations making use of currently
available experimental data resulting in more scientists participating in reduced-gravity
research; b) allow new areas of research and discovery to occur more quickly through
open access; and c) accelerate the "research to product or publication" timeline through
the rapid sharing of data. The PSI system allows researchers access to the detailed
experimental data obtained from flight research conducted as part of the Physical
Sciences Research Program in support of NASA's Biological and Physical Sciences
(BPS) Division. See the International Space Station Researcher’s Guide to the Physical
Sciences Informatics System for more information.
This PSI call for proposals is part of NASA SMD's ROSES-2022 solicitation. All
proposers are encouraged to read the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, to learn
the default guidelines. The default content and format of proposals are described in
Section IV(b) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Table 1 of ROSES-2022
provides a list of the default rules and parts of proposals. Some of these defaults are
modified in the sections below. In the cases of any conflicts, this program element takes
precedence, followed by the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, and last the 2022
NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Statutes and regulations always apply and take
precedence over any solicitation or guidance.
2. Scope of This Program Element
2.1 Research Emphases Specific for this Program Element
The PSI system includes experimental data from the following research and data
analysis areas: 1) Biophysics, 2) Combustion Science, 3) Complex Fluids, 4) Fluid
Physics, 5) Fundamental Physics, and 6) Materials Science. This program element
solicits ground-based research in all these six research areas. The proposals must
present a compelling case of how the experimental data from the PSI system will be
used to promote the advancement of further research. Proposals must be responsive to
the high-priority research areas identified in the 2011 Decadal Survey report
"Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a
New Era". The relevant identifiers are listed under Applied Physical Science in Space

E.8-1
(AP1, AP5, AP6, AP9) and Translation to Space Exploration Systems, which can be
found in Table 13.1 of the report.
The proposals must show a clear path from the scientific data obtained from the PSI
system to the proposed investigation. In addition, the project must address an important
problem in the proposed area of research and advance scientific knowledge or
technology. The scope of the proposed work is unrestricted except that the use of data
in the PSI database must comprise a substantial portion of the research. Examples of
proposed investigations that utilize the PSI data include:
• Enhancement and verification of numerical and analytical models;
• Development or enhancement of data analysis or other informatics tools and
data products specifically to enhance the utilization of the PSI database;
• A new ground-based experiment or data analysis to verify phenomena observed in
investigations listed in Table A;
• A new ground-based experiment or data analysis that expands upon the results
from the investigations listed in Table A;
• A new ground-based experiment or data analysis that is not directly linked with
the science objectives from the investigations listed in Table A.
Proposers must review the data in the PSI system before preparing their proposal. The
proposal must clearly demonstrate how the PSI data will be used in the project.
Furthermore, prior to the submission of the proposal, it is highly recommended that the
proposers take at least one representative sample set of PSI data to perform numerical
modeling, sample experiments, or other preliminary investigation, and present the
findings as part of the proposal.
For further clarification of any experimental information provided in the PSI, contact the
experiment's Point of Contact listed in the "General" section of the experiment
description in the PSI system.
Research results from proposals selected under this program element will be entered
into the PSI system for use by future investigators. See Section 6.3 below for additional
information.
2.2 Eligible PSI investigations
This program element specifically solicits proposals that utilize data from investigations
listed in Table A, below. Data from 86 investigations in the PSI system are eligible for
use in the proposals submitted in response to this program element. Of these
investigations, 65 are from the ISS including two experiments provided by the German
Aerospace Center (DLR), eight from the Space Shuttle (Space Transportation System;
STS), one from a Free Flyer experiment (Foton-M3), one from X-37B Orbital Test
Vehicle provided by the Air Force Research Laboratory, three from commercial cargo
flights to and from the ISS (Commercial Resupply Services; CRS), and eight are
ground-based investigations using PSI data (denoted as "Ground" in Table A).

E.8-2
 Table A: Data and relevant information from investigations eligible for study via
proposals submitted to this program element

Carrier /
# Research Area Investigation
Source
Macromolecular Biophysics-1 (The Effect of
1 Biophysics Macromolecular Transport on Microgravity Protein ISS
Crystallization)
LMM Biophysics 2,5 (Solution Convection and the
2 Biophysics ISS
Nucleation Precursors in Protein Crystallization)
LMM Biophysics 3,6 (Growth Rate Dispersion as
a Predictive Indicator for Biological Crystal
3 Biophysics ISS
Samples Where Quality Can be Improved with
Microgravity Growth)
Combustion ACME BRE (Advanced Combustion via
4 ISS
Science Microgravity Experiments Burning Rate Emulator)
Combustion ACME E-Field Flames (Advanced Combustion via
5 ISS
Science Microgravity Experiments Electric Field Flames)
ACME S-Flames (Advanced Combustion via
Combustion
6 Microgravity Experiments Structure and ISS
Science
Response of Spherical Diffusion Flames)
Combustion
7 BASS (Burning and Suppression of Solids) ISS
Science
Combustion
8 BASS-II (Burning and Suppression of Solids - II) ISS
Science
Combustion
9 CFI (Cool Flames Investigation) ISS
Science
Combustion DAFT (Dust and Aerosol Measurement Feasibility
10 ISS
Science Test)
Combustion DAFT-2 (Dust and Aerosol Measurement
11 ISS
Science Feasibility Test - 2)
Combustion
12 FLEX (Flame Extinguishment Experiment) ISS
Science
Combustion
13 FLEX-2 (Flame Extinguishment Experiment - 2) ISS
Science
Quantitative Studies of Cool Flame Transitions at
Combustion
14 Radiation/Stretch Extinction Using Counterflow Ground
Science
Flames (PSI investigation)

E.8-3
 Carrier /
# Research Area Investigation
Source
Cygnus
Combustion
15 SAFFIRE I (Spacecraft Fire Experiment I) CRS OA-
Science
6
Cygnus
Combustion
16 SAFFIRE II (Spacecraft Fire Experiment II) CRS OA-
Science
5
Cygnus
Combustion
17 SAFFIRE III (Spacecraft Fire Experiment III) CRS OA-
Science
7
Combustion SAME (Smoke Aerosol Measurement
18 ISS
Science Experiment)
Combustion SAME-R (Smoke Aerosol Measurement
19 ISS
Science Experiment - Reflight)
Combustion SLICE (Structure and Liftoff in Combustion
20 ISS
Science Experiment)
Combustion
21 SPICE (Smoke Point in Coflow Experiment) ISS
Science
Utilization of the Smoke Aerosol Measurement
Combustion Experiment Data for Advanced Modeling and
22 Ground
Science Simulation of Smoke Generation in Micro-Gravity
(PSI investigation)
Complex Fluids/ ACE-M1 (Advanced Colloids Experiment -
23 ISS
Soft Matter Microscopy 1)
Complex Fluids/ ACE-M2 (Advanced Colloids Experiment -
24 ISS
Soft Matter Microscopy 2)
Complex Fluids/ ACE-M2R (Advanced Colloids Experiment -
25 ISS
Soft Matter Microscopy 2 Reflight)
Complex Fluids/ ACE-T7 (Advanced Colloids Experiment -
26 ISS
Soft Matter Temperature 7)
Complex Fluids/
27 BCAT-3 (Binary Colloidal Alloy Test - 3) ISS
Soft Matter
Complex Fluids/
28 BCAT-4 (Binary Colloidal Alloy Test - 4) ISS
Soft Matter
Complex Fluids/
29 BCAT-5 (Binary Colloidal Alloy Test - 5) ISS
Soft Matter

E.8-4
 Carrier /
# Research Area Investigation
Source
Complex Fluids/
30 BCAT-6 (Binary Colloidal Alloy Test - 6) ISS
Soft Matter
InSPACE (Investigating the Structure of
Complex Fluids/
31 Paramagnetic Aggregates from Colloidal ISS
Soft Matter
Emulsions)
InSPACE-2 (Investigating the Structure of
Complex Fluids/
32 Paramagnetic Aggregates from Colloidal ISS
Soft Matter
Emulsions - 2)
InSPACE-3 (Investigating the Structure of
Complex Fluids/
33 Paramagnetic Aggregates from Colloidal ISS
Soft Matter
Emulsions - 3)
InSPACE-3+ (Investigating the Structure of
Complex Fluids/
34 Paramagnetic Aggregates from Colloidal ISS
Soft Matter
Emulsions - 3+)
Complex Fluids/ OASIS (Observation and Analysis of Smectic
35 ISS
Soft Matter Islands in Space)
Complex Fluids/
36 PCS (Physics of Colloids in Space) ISS
Soft Matter
Complex Fluids/
37 PHaSE (Physics of Hard Spheres Experiment) STS-94
Soft Matter
Complex Fluids/ PKE-Nefedov & PK-3+ (Plasma Kristall
38 ISS
Soft Matter Experiment; Dusty Plasma)
Complex Fluids/ SHERE (Shear History Extensional Rheology
39 ISS
Soft Matter Experiment)
Complex Fluids/ SHERE II (Shear History Extensional Rheology
40 ISS
Soft Matter Experiment II)
Complex Fluids/ SHERE-R (Shear History Extensional Rheology
41 ISS
Soft Matter Experiment - Reflight)
Complex Fluids/ Structure Evolution During Phase Separation in
42 Ground
Soft Matter Colloids Under Microgravity (PSI investigation)
X-37B/
ASETS II (Advanced Structurally Embedded
43 Fluid Physics AFRL
Thermal Spreader II)

CCF-CV-EU1 (Capillary Channel Flow – Critical

44 Fluid Physics ISS
Velocities - Experiment Unit 1)

E.8-5
 Carrier /
# Research Area Investigation
Source
CCF-CV-EU2 (Capillary Channel Flow – Critical
45 Fluid Physics ISS/DLR
Velocities - Experiment Unit 2)
CCF-PS-EU2 (Capillary Channel Flow – Phase
46 Fluid Physics ISS/DLR
Separation - Experiment Unit 2)
47 Fluid Physics CFE (Capillary Flow Experiment) ISS
48 Fluid Physics CFE-2 (Capillary Flow Experiment – 2) ISS
Computational Framework for Capillary Flows
49 Fluid Physics Ground
(PSI investigation)
50 Fluid Physics CVB (Constrained Vapor Bubble) ISS
51 Fluid Physics CVB-2 (Constrained Vapor Bubble – 2) ISS
Development and Verification of a 3D Nucleate
52 Fluid Physics Pool Boiling Simulation Model Using PSI Data Ground
(PSI investigation)
Gravity Scaling of Pool Boiling Heat Transfer:
53 Fluid Physics Numerical Simulations and Validation with MABE Ground
and NPBX (PSI investigation)
IVGEN (IntraVenous Fluid GENeration for
54 Fluid Physics ISS
Exploration Missions)
MABE (Microheater Array Heater Boiling
55 Fluid Physics ISS
Experiment)
56 Fluid Physics NPBX (Nucleate Pool Boiling Experiment) ISS
STS-47,
STS-57,
57 Fluid Physics PBE (Pool Boiling Experiment) STS-60,
STS-72,
STS-77
58 Fluid Physics PBRE (Packed Bed Reactor Experiment) ISS
59 Fluid Physics PBRE-2 (Packed Bed Reactor Experiment – 2) ISS
STDCE-1 (Surface Tension Driven Convection
60 Fluid Physics Experiment) - First United States Microgravity STS-52
Payload on Columbia (USML-1)
Fundamental CAL (Cold Atom Laboratory) – Bose - Einstein
61 ISS
Physics Condensate Bubble Dynamics

E.8-6
 Carrier /
# Research Area Investigation
Source
Fundamental CAL (Cold Atom Laboratory) - Development of
62 ISS
Physics Atom Interferometry Experiments for the ISS
CAL (Cold Atom Laboratory) - Fundamental
Fundamental
63 Interactions for Atom Interferometry with Ultracold ISS
Physics
Quantum Gases in a Microgravity Environment
Fundamental CAL (Cold Atom Laboratory) – Consortium for
64 ISS
Physics Ultracold Atoms in Space
Fundamental DECLIC-ALI (Device for the Study of Critical
65 ISS
Physics Liquids and Crystallization - Alice Like Insert)
Fundamental GRADFLEX (Gradient Driven Fluctuation
66 Foton-M3
Physics Experiment)
STS-83,
67 Materials Science CSLM (Coarsening in Solid-Liquid Mixtures)
STS-94
68 Materials Science CSLM-2 (Coarsening in Solid-Liquid Mixtures - 2) ISS
CSLM-2R (Coarsening in Solid-Liquid Mixtures - 2
69 Materials Science ISS
Reflight)
70 Materials Science CSLM-3 (Coarsening in Solid-Liquid Mixtures - 3) ISS
71 Materials Science CSLM-4 (Coarsening in Solid-Liquid Mixtures - 4) ISS
DECLIC-DSI (Device for the Study of Critical
72 Materials Science Liquids and Crystallization - Directional ISS
Solidification Insert)
EML Batch 1 - THERMOLAB (Electromagnetic
Levitation Flight Support for Transient
73 Materials Science Observation of Nucleation Events - ISS
Thermophysical Properties of Liquid Metallic
Alloys)
Enhancement and Verification of Quantitative
Phase-Field Crystal Modeling using NASA-PSI
74 Materials Science Ground
Coarsening in Solid-Liquid Mixtures Experiments
Data (PSI investigation)
IDGE-STS-62 (Isothermal Dendritic Growth
75 Materials Science Experiment) - Second United States Microgravity STS-62
Payload on Columbia (USMP-2)

E.8-7
 Carrier /
# Research Area Investigation
Source
IDGE-STS-75 (Isothermal Dendritic Growth
76 Materials Science Experiment) - Third United States Microgravity STS-75
Payload on Columbia (USMP-3)
IDGE-STS-87 (Isothermal Dendritic Growth
77 Materials Science Experiment) - Fourth United States Microgravity STS-87
Payload on Columbia (USMP-4)
78 Materials Science ISSI (In-Space Soldering Investigation) ISS
MICAST/CSS (Microstructure Formation in
Casting of Technical Alloys under Diffusive and
Magnetically Controlled Convective
79 Materials Science ISS
Conditions/Comparison of Structure and
Segregation in Alloys Directionally Solidified in
Terrestrial and Microgravity Environments)
MICS (Microgravity Investigation of Cement
80 Materials Science ISS
Solidification)
MICS-MVP (Microgravity Investigation of Cement
81 Materials Science ISS
Solidification - Multi-use Variable-gravity Platform)
82 Materials Science PFMI (Pore Formation and Mobility Investigation) ISS
Pore-Mushy Zone Interaction During Directional
Solidification of Alloys: Three Dimensional
83 Materials Science Ground
Simulation and Comparison with Experiments
(PSI investigation)
84 Materials Science Strata-1 ISS
SUBSA (Solidification Using a Baffle in Sealed
85 Materials Science ISS
Ampoules)
TEMPUS (Tiegelfreies Elektromagnetisches
STS-65,
Prozessieren Unter Schwerelosigkeit;
86 Materials Science STS-83,
Electromagnetic Containerless Processing in
STS-94
Microgravity)

Investigations marked as "Ground" in Table A are selections from prior PSI solicitations
that are based on data from the reduced-gravity investigations contained in the PSI
system. Proposers planning to use data from prior PSI solicitation selections may want
to consider combining the data with other, reduced-gravity investigations contained in
the PSI system. Description of how the PSI investigations connect to the original
reduced-gravity investigations is provided in the PSI system.

E.8-8
The scope of the proposed work is unrestricted except that the use of data in the PSI
database must comprise a substantial portion of the research. Also, proposals must
utilize data from investigations listed in Table A to be eligible. Proposals that do not
utilize data from investigations listed in Table A may be declared non-responsive and
declined without further review. Future data or data that is not currently in the PSI
system is not eligible.
Note: Principal Investigators (PIs), Co-Investigators (Co-Is), and other team members of
investigations listed in Table A who are actively working on those existing awards on the
proposal due date may submit proposals in response to this program element.
However, such investigators will only be considered for selection if the active grant
expires within one year of the proposal due date. In such a case, the new award will not
start until the expiration of the current grant. This restriction does not apply to active
investigators proposing to use PSI data from investigations other than their own.
3. Proposal Content
3.1 Notice of Intent
Notices of Intent (NOIs), as described in Section IV(b)vi of the ROSES-2022 Summary
of Solicitation and Section 2.3 of the 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers, are strongly
encouraged, but not required. Notices of Intent should be submitted electronically by the
NOI due date given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022 by clicking the “create” button on
to the right of the NOI due date on the NSPIRES page of this program element.
3.2 Proposal Content and Formatting
The proposals submitted to this program element consist of electronic forms (i.e., the
NSPIRES cover page) and two attachments: Proposal Document (see Section 3.2.2)
and Total Budget (see Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation).
3.2.1 Proposal Cover Page
Proposers must fill out the NSPIRES Proposal Cover Pages, as described in Section
IV(b)iv of ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and Section 2.8 of the 2022 NASA
Guidebook for Proposers.
3.2.2 Proposal Document
All proposals must include a Proposal Document consisting of the 10-page
Scientific/Technical/Management Project Description section and all other required
elements. The Document must include the sections listed in Table B below, in the order
listed, as one searchable, unlocked PDF file. If any required sections are missing from
the Proposal Document, the proposal may be declared non-compliant and declined
without review. No additional sections/appendices beyond what is specified in Table B
are allowed, with the following exception: a Title Page that states the name of the
proposal and the proposing organization maybe be included in the proposal. The Title
Page may include project or organization logos but shall not include additional proposal
information such as abstracts. The page may be used to provide statements regarding
proprietary information and/or export control. Proposals that exceed page limits, contain
extra sections that are not specifically requested or allowed by this program element, or

E.8-9
violate formatting rules described in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation may be
declared noncompliant and returned without review.
See Table 1 of ROSES-2022 for the basic requirements and restrictions on the contents
and format of the Proposal Document. Exceptions of the requirements from the
Summary of Solicitation are described below in Table B.
Table B: Required Elements for Proposal Document
Section Section Page Limit Reference for More
Number Information
1 Table of Contents 1 page Table 1 of ROSES-
maximum 2022
2 Summary Chart 1 page Section 3.2.2
maximum
3 Scientific/Technical/Management 10 pages Section 3.2.2
(Project Description) maximum
4 References no page limit Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
5 Data Management Plan 2 pages Section 3.2.2
maximum
6 Biographical Sketches/ 2 pages per Section 3.2.2
Curriculum Vitae (CVs) person, no
overall page
limit
7 Table of Personnel and Work no page limit Section IV(b)iii and
Effort Table 1 of the ROSES-
2022 Summary of
Solicitation
8 Current and Pending Support no page limit Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
9 Letters of Support no page limit Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
10 Budget no page limit Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
11 Facilities and Equipment no page limit Table 1 of ROSES-
2022
• Summary Chart: A single page Summary Chart must be included to summarize the
main points of the proposal. The chart will be used to represent the proposal during
the review process. The chart is intended to provide a quick sense of the proposed
effort and should stand alone (i.e., not require the full proposal to be understood). It
must not include any proprietary or export-controlled data, as NASA may make the
Summary Charts of selected proposals available to the public after selections are
announced. Proposal submission, in accordance with this requirement, will indicate
the proposer’s consent to public release of the Summary Chart. The Summary Chart
should be included in landscape format, should occupy the entire page (except for
margins), and shall not exceed one page. A template of a suitable Summary Chart is

E.8-10
 available on under “Other documents” on the NSPIRES webpage for this program
element.
• Scientific/Technical/Management (Project Description): The length of the
Scientific/Technical/Management section of the proposal shall not exceed 10 pages.
The format (margins, etc.) of this section must follow the guidelines provided in
Table 1 of ROSES-2022. The proposal shall contain sufficient detail to enable
reviewers to make informed judgments about the overall merit of the proposed
research and about the probability that the investigators will be able to accomplish
their stated objectives with current resources and the resources requested. The
hypotheses and specific aims of the proposed research shall be clearly stated. The
proposed research plan and science objectives from all participants, including any
international team members, must be included in the submitted proposal. The
project description also must include a general implementation plan that includes the
management structure for the proposal personnel. Reviewers will not consider any
material that exceeds the page limit for the project description. Cited literature and
all other proposal sections are not considered part of the page limit for the project
description. Reviewers are not required to view and/or consider external references,
including referenced websites, in their evaluation of the proposal.
• Data Management Plan: A Data Management Plan (DMP) of up to 2-pages must be
included in the uploaded Proposal PDF immediately following the references and
citations. The DMP must describe how data generated through the course of the
proposed research will be shared and preserved, including the timeframe. Since all
award recipients from this program element are required to upload the data
produced from the funded research into the PSI system at the end of the award
period (see Section 6.3) and upload as-accepted manuscript versions of peer-
reviewed publications that result from PSI awards into NASA PubSpace, only DMPs
that incorporate these requirements are acceptable for proposals submitted in
response to this program element. Additional requirements of the DMP are
described in Section 1.1 of E.1 the Biological and Physical Sciences Research
Overview and Section II(c) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. An example
template of a suitable DMP for this program element is available on the NSPIRES
webpage for this program element. Use of this template is encouraged not required.
• Biographical Sketches/Curriculum Vitae (CVs): The PI, each Co-I, and any other
team member that will play a critical management or technical role in the proposed
investigation must include a biographical sketch (not to exceed two pages) that
includes their professional experiences, positions, and a bibliography of recent
publications. The sketches should highlight publications relevant to the proposed
investigation. These instructions slightly differ from and supersede the default.
3.3 Revised Proposals
Proposals in response to this program element that are resubmissions of a proposal to
any NASA-sponsored research announcement that was not accepted must address the
weaknesses from previous review cycles as part of the 10-page-limited S/T/M Project
Description section. Proposers need not specifically call out each review panel

E.8-11
comment as part of their proposal. If a revised proposal does not include this revised
content, it may be declared non-compliant and declined without review.
4. Proposal Submission
This program element will use the general submission requirements as described in
Section IV(b)i of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Proposals submitted after
the proposal deadline on the proposal due date will be considered late and may be
rejected without review, see SMD’s Policy on Late Proposals (SPD-02A). NASA will
conduct an Administrative Review of all proposals to prescreen them for compliance
with the requirements of this solicitation. See Section 4.1 of the 2022 NASA Guidebook
for Proposers and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation for more
information.
5. Review and Selection Process
5.1 Technical and Programmatic Review
Compliant proposals will undergo a technical and programmatic review, as described in
Section V of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and Section 4.2 of the 2022
NASA Guidebook for Proposers. The proposals will be evaluated on three criteria
defined in Appendix D of the 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers: intrinsic merit,
relevance, and cost.
A panel of scientific and/or technical subject matter experts will evaluate the intrinsic
merit of the proposals. This panel of experts may include non-NASA and other non-
Government personnel. The number and diversity of experts required will be determined
by the response to this program element.
In addition to the four factors described in Appendix D of the 2022 NASA Guidebook for
Proposers, the evaluation of intrinsic merit will include the extent to which the proposal
would effectively make use of the PSI System defined as: The importance of the
utilization of the experimental data contained in the PSI system to meeting the research
goals stated in the proposal. The usefulness of the chosen PSI data in advancing
research in the chosen research area.
As part of the evaluation of relevance, NASA will consider several factors, including
relevance to the goals and/or objectives of this program element, strategic relevance
and alignment, and portfolio balance. Proposals that enable exploration or pioneer
scientific discovery will have strong program alignment.
Evaluation of the cost of the proposed effort includes consideration of the
reasonableness of the proposed cost and NASA will consider the proposed cost relative
to available funds.
While the most important factor in this evaluation process is intrinsic merit, all evaluation
criteria are taken into consideration when making final selections. Deficiencies in any
one of these criteria or factors within criteria may prevent selection of a proposal.
5.2 Selection
Selection procedures will be consistent with the procedures identified in Section V of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and Appendix D of the 2022 NASA Guidebook

E.8-12
for Proposers. The Selection Official for this program element will be the Director of the
Biological and Physical Sciences Division, Science Mission Directorate, or designee.
6. Post-Award Program Reporting/Individual Researcher Reporting
In addition to the reporting described in Sections II(c) and VI(c) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation, recipients of awards made through this program element are
subject to the following reporting requirements.
6.1 Annual Reporting and Task Book Reporting
The PI shall provide an annual written report to NASA on or before the anniversary of
the start of funding. This information will be used to assess the degree of progress of
the project. This information will consist primarily of:
• An abstract;
• A bibliographic list of publications;
• Copies of publications;
• A statement of progress, including a comparison with the originally proposed work
schedule.
A component of the annual report will be used for the NASA Task Book
(https://taskbook.nasaprs.com/). The Task Book includes descriptions of all peer-
reviewed Life and Physical Sciences activities funded by NASA's Biological and
Physical Sciences Division. The Task Book is an invaluable source of information for
NASA biological, biomedical, and physical sciences researchers, as well as the external
scientific and technical communities.
6.2 Final Report
A final report must be provided to NASA at the end of the award funding period,
including a detailed listing of all peer-reviewed publications. This information will consist
primarily of:
• Statement of the specific objectives;
• Significance of the work;
• Background;
• Overall progress during the performance period;
• Narrative discussion of technical approaches including problems encountered;
• Accomplishments related to approach;
• An appendix with bibliography and copies of all publications and reports.
Any publications or other public materials containing data are particularly important to
include in the report.
6.3 Providing Data to the NASA Physical Sciences Informatics System
All awardees must upload data produced from this research into the PSI system at the
end of the award period. Data input must conform to the PSI data submission
requirements document that resides in the PSI system; NASA will provide specific data
input procedures at a later date. The required data include: the raw experimental data in
a machine-readable textual or numerical form, digital images and video; analyzed or
reduced data prepared by the PI; and supporting data including NASA reports, science

E.8-13
requirements, experiment design and engineering data (including applicable drawings),
any new analytical or numerical models, tools, or software developed as part of the
research, references to publications and patents, and description of any commercial
applications developed as a result of the research. Additional requirements on data and
software deliverables are described in Section 1.1 of E.1 the Biological and Physical
Sciences Research Overview and Section II(c) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
7. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget for ~$625,000/year
all new awards
Anticipated number of and budget for ~5 proposals with average awards of $100K
new awards pending adequate for first year and $125K for second year.
proposals of merit Deviations from these targeted figures are
possible.
Maximum duration of awards 2 years
Due Date for Notices of Intent See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due Date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of October 2023
investigation
Page limit for the central 10 pages; See Table B for all components of
Science/Technical/Management the proposal and their and page limits.
section of proposal
Relevance This Program Element is relevant to Objective
1.2 of NASA's Strategic Plan. Proposals that
are relevant to this program element are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
this solicitation Solicitation
General requirements for content of See Section 3 of this program element and
proposals Section IV and Table 1 of ROSES-2022
Detailed instructions for the See Sections 3-4 of this program element,
preparation and submission of NSPIRES Online Help, and Sections 2.22-3.4
proposals of the 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hardcopy or email submission is permitted.
Web site for submission of proposal https://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
via NSPIRES available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
Web site for submission of proposal https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
via Grants.gov support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726))
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package NNH22ZDA001N-PSI
from Grants.gov

E.8-14
Point of contact concerning this
Program
Francis Chiaramonte
Physical Sciences Program
Biological and Physical Sciences Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: Francis.p.chiaramonte@nasa.gov
and BPS-PhysicalSciences@nasaprs.com
E.8-15
E.9 SPACE BIOLOGY: RESEARCH STUDIES
NOTICE: Amended February 15, 2023. The due dates for Step-1 and
Step-2 proposals have been delayed: Step-1 proposals are now due
February 22, 2023, and Step-2 proposals are now due May 17, 2023.
January 5, 2023. A small change was made to the phrasing in Section
2.3.2 about the timing of the release of the details for requests for
access to genuine lunar regolith. New text is in bold, deleted text is
struck through. The due dates remain unchanged.
Amended December 16, 2022. This amendment presents a new
program element in ROSES-2022. Proposals to this program will be
submitted by a binding two-step process in which the Notice of Intent
is replaced by a mandatory Step-1 proposal that must be submitted by
an organization's Authorized Organizational Representative. Only
proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a Step-
2 (full) proposal. See Section 4.2 of this program element. Step-1
proposals are due February 1, 2023, and Step-2 proposals are due
April 25, 2023. Step-1 proposals may be submitted via
https://www.grants.gov/ or https://nspires.nasaprs.com. Step-2
Proposals must be submitted via NSPIRES.
1. Introduction and Funding Opportunity Summary
The NASA Space Biology (SB) program element falls within the Biological and Physical
Sciences (BPS) Division. This program element focuses on ideas that will increase
NASA’s understanding of how living systems respond to the unique environments that
are encountered during space exploration, including the Low Earth Orbit (LEO)
environment inside the International Space Station (ISS) and deep space conditions
beyond LEO, including transit to and maintenance in Lunar and Martian environments.
This program element represents a partnership between the NASA Space Biology
Program within the Biological and Physical Sciences Division and NASA’s
Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES) Division within the
Exploration Architecture, Integration, and Science (EAIS) Directorate at the NASA
Johnson Space Center. This funding opportunity solicits proposals for ground-based
research studies that will characterize the response of plant or animal models (and/or
their associated microbes) to exposure to lunar regolith simulant formulated to resemble
material found in the Lunar Highlands at the Moon’s south pole. Additional details
regarding the formulation and acquisition of this material by investigators will be
included within a Mandatory Information Supplement of this announcement which will
be released on NSPIRES to complement this program element in early 2023 in
anticipation of the Step-2 response.
Some awardees from this opportunity may be eligible to receive and conduct additional
experiments with genuine lunar (Apollo) regolith for validation studies that will compare
results attained with simulant to those attained with genuine material. This eligibility, in
part, will be determined by the progress made by the awardees during the early phases
of their studies, as well as the Project Type of the original proposal. Additional
information about this opportunity can be found below in Section 2: “Scope of This
E.9-1
Program Element”, along with information regarding the specific Project Types solicited
by this program element, as well as details about award amounts and durations.
1.1 Background
The NASA Space Biology Program solicits and funds research that will increase
NASA’s understanding of how living systems respond to stressors encountered during
space exploration. Space Biology works across the spectrum of biological organization,
from molecules to cells, from tissues and organs, and from systems to whole
organisms. More information about the Space Biology Program can be found at:
https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/programs/space-biology.
The framework for the Space Biology Program is described in its Science Plan (2016-
2025). The Space Biology Science Plan defines over-arching guiding questions focused
on integrated biological approaches to understanding physiological, anatomical, and
molecular mechanisms and networks that respond to and/or govern the acclimation,
adaptation, and other responses of living systems to the space exploration environment.
The 2011 National Research Council Decadal Survey, "Recapturing a Future for Space
Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era" provides guidance for
further refining the guiding questions to specific scientific priorities. Additionally, new
priorities were identified in the 2017 National Research Council Report "A Midterm
Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences
Research at NASA”.
By combining molecular and cellular biology approaches with those that characterize
and assess changes in physiology, Space Biology researchers probe deeply into
underlying mechanisms of acclimation to environments encountered during space
exploration to determine the fundamental ways living systems interact with stressors
associated with these environments (e.g., microgravity, radiation, elevated
concentrations of carbon dioxide etc.). This research informs how biological systems
regulate and sustain growth, metabolism, reproduction, and development in space/deep
space, and how they repair damage and protect themselves from infection and disease.
Such basic knowledge provides the foundation on which biomedical researchers can
build approaches and countermeasures to enable humans to thrive during deep space
exploration. In addition, such knowledge has provided, and will continue to provide,
benefits to the health and well-being of those on Earth.
2. Scope of This Program Element
As human exploration prepares to go beyond Earth Orbit, Space Biology is advancing
its research priorities towards work that will enable organisms to Thrive In DEep Space
(TIDES). The ultimate goal of the TIDES initiative is to enable long-duration space
missions and improve life on Earth through innovative research. Space Biology-
supported research will enable the study of the effects of environmental stressors in
spaceflight on model organisms, that will both inform future fundamental research, as
well as provide valuable information that will better enable human exploration of deep
space.
While some of the stressors associated with spaceflight in Low Earth Orbit, such as
microgravity, are also found in deep space, stressors, such as exposure to potentially

E.9-2
toxic regolith and increased levels of space radiation are exclusive to deep space. The
program’s efforts therefore will focus on determining the effects of deep-space
stressors, including exposure to regolith, ionizing radiation, and reduced gravity, on
biological systems.
Space Biology, through this program element, is soliciting proposals for ground-based
plant or animal studies (and/or their associated microbes) that will characterize the
responses of these organisms to conditions that recapitulate the stressors encountered
in space exploration, specifically, exposure to lunar regolith (simulant). As NASA has
identified multiple regions around the lunar south pole as candidate landing sites for
future lunar exploration missions (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-identifies-
candidate-regions-for-landing-next-americans-on-moon), proposed simulant studies
must use material that is formulated to resemble lunar regolith found in this region (see
Section 2.3 below for more information).
Section 2.1 of this program element provides additional details about the plant studies
solicited by this opportunity, as well as the specific project types that can be proposed
for these studies, which are Plant Research Investigations (PRIs), Plant Small Scale
Research Investigations (SSPRIs), and Plant Early Career Research Investigations
(PECRIs).
Section 2.2 of this program element provides additional details about the animal studies
solicited by this opportunity.
Please read Sections 2.1 and 2.2 carefully as this program element solicits multiple
different Project Types, which in turn each have different requirements, durations, and
budgetary limits. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that their proposed
project meets the requirements and fit within the budget and duration limits described in
these sections.
2.1 Plant Studies
Fundamental discoveries made by NASA researchers over the last 50 years have
helped to enable the successful growth of plants in spacecraft, as is demonstrated
through current work being done on the ISS. Despite these advances, additional
fundamental plant biology research is still needed. There is much to learn about how
plants respond to the spaceflight environments both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in
deep space or on planetary surfaces, and what it will take to support long-duration,
multiple generation plant growth and cultivation during extended space exploration
missions. To fully support NASA’s goals of conducting extended lunar and planetary
exploration missions, it will be necessary to utilize the resources found within these
environments, including regolith, to grow and cultivate plants.
This program element solicits three different Project Types for plant studies: Plant
Research Investigations (PRI), Small Scale Plant Research Investigations (SSPRIs)
and Plant Early Career Research Investigations (PECRI). Specific information about
these study types can be found in Sections 2.1.1 – 2.1.3 below. Proposers for plant
studies should read these sections carefully, as the different Project Types described
have different requirements as wells as different budget and duration limits.

E.9-3
Plant biology proposals submitted to this program element shall be for ground-based
studies only. Proposals including flight studies will not be accepted for this program
element and will be declined without review. These proposals must be for hypothesis-
driven research projects, most of which must include the characterization of how plants
respond to lunar regolith simulant. For the purposes of this program element, regolith
simulant exposure can range anywhere from transient intermittent contact to growth
within the material. Please refer to Section 2.3 for information regarding the acquisition
of regolith simulant.
Please note the following for the proposed use of other stressors in combination with
lunar regolith simulant: while applicants planning to conduct additional radiation
experiments are free to propose experiments that use the radiation facilities at the
NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) located at the Brookhaven National Lab,
Space Biology will not directly pay the cost of their use. Proposers planning to use these
facilities must contact NSRL (https://www.bnl.gov/nsrl/), and appropriately account for
the cost of beam-time and facility use in their budget.
2.1.1 Plant Research Investigations
For the purposes of this program element, Plant Research Investigations (PRI) are in-
depth ground-based studies that will characterize the effects that exposure to lunar
regolith simulant has on plant biology, physiology, growth, development, and/or plant
and microbial interactions. PRI proposals involving lunar simulant studies solely with
plant-relevant-microbes are also responsive to this program element but must contain
adequate justification for the study of these microbes and their relevance to plant
biology, either through preliminary data, or cited literature. Additional stressors apart
from lunar regolith simulant are not necessary to include in PRI proposals. However, if
included, they may be, but are not limited to, simulated microgravity, space-relevant
radiation, altered CO2 levels, and altered light spectra.
PRI awardees that are funded from this opportunity may be eligible to receive genuine
Apollo regolith from NASA’s Apollo sample collection during the third and final year of
their projects for a final set of experiments if the data generated from the first phase of
their studies using simulant is indicative of a novel biological discovery that needs to be
validated using genuine material. Such requests would need to be submitted by the
principal investigator to the NASA Space Biology Program during the 15th month of the
award performance period. Space Biology will then evaluate requests on a case-by-
case basis, which may involve the submission of additional materials including a
progress report by the requesting PI, as well as a final review, decision, and allocation
by the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office within the Astromaterials
Research and Exploration Science (ARES) Division. More information about this may
be included within the Mandatory Information Supplement of this announcement which
will be released early 2023. Please also see Section 2.3 of this program element for
more information.
Please note: The use of genuine lunar regolith is not a requirement for a PRI proposal
to be responsive to this program element, as there is no guarantee by NASA that
applicants will have access to such materials. While Space Biology encourages
investigators to consider what types of experiments they may propose if genuine lunar

E.9-4
regolith is available, the program does not recommend writing an application that is
dependent solely on its use. Proposals involving experiments to utilize genuine lunar
regolith samples, therefore, must include contingencies regarding experimental design
and analysis (as necessary) in case genuine regolith samples are unavailable.
Proposals for PRIs will be limited to three years in duration and $300,000 in total costs.
2.1.2 Small Scale Plant Research Investigations
For the purposes of this program element, a Small-Scale Plant Research Investigation
(SSPRI) is a short-duration (1 year) study that is responsive to one of the research
topics described in the paragraphs below and is intended to produce pilot data for future
NASA grants. Space Biology will accept SSPRI proposals in response to this program
element for either of the following types of research projects:
• Experimental: Ground-based studies which characterize the effects of lunar
regolith simulant exposure on plant biology, physiology, growth, development,
and/or plant and microbial interactions. While the inclusion of other space-
relevant stressors, such as simulated microgravity, space-relevant radiation,
altered CO2 levels, and altered light spectra, may be included, they are not
required. SSPRI proposals involving lunar simulant studies with plant-relevant
microbes are also acceptable and will be considered to be responsive to this
program element. However, such proposals will be expected to contain adequate
justification for the use of these microbes and supporting evidence for their
relevance to plant biology, either through preliminary data or cited literature.
• GeneLab: Investigations that will utilize the GeneLab Data System (GLDS) to
answer Systems Biology-related questions regarding how plants or plant-relevant
microbes respond to stressors associated with spaceflight and/or deep space
environments (the inclusion of regolith experiments in not a requirement for such
projects). For more information about GeneLab, refer to Section 9.2 of this
program element. Awards for such investigations can be used to 1) support part-
time research efforts to perform analysis of data within the GLDS across multiple
data sets, encompassing multiple plant species, to identify common pathways
and responses that are important for adapting organisms to spaceflight; or 2)
perform omics sequencing on spaceflight-relevant biological samples, the data
from which will be analyzed for the purposes described above, and added to the
GLDS. Proposals for these projects must present hypotheses that will be tested
through the proposed analysis and must contain detailed descriptions of how the
analysis will be performed and the expected results.
SSPRIs will be limited to one year in duration and $100,000 in total costs.
2.1.3 Plant Early Career Research Investigations
This program element solicits proposals referred to as Plant Early Career Research
Investigations (PECRIs) to conduct pilot studies to study new, innovative, or advanced
concepts that may lead to new tools or techniques for future full-scale investigations.
Plant Early Career Research Investigations are limited to one-year ground-based
studies. For the purposes of this program element, an early career investigation applies
to an investigator who has completed their terminal research degree or medical
residency - whichever date is later - within the past 10 years relative to the Step-2
E.9-5
submission due date and has not yet been a principal investigator for a NASA life-
sciences grant (over $250K in total costs).
If applying for this award, the proposing PI must include the date of their terminal
degree (or end of residency) on their biographical sketch (see Table E.9-B in Section
4.2.2) as well as in the first paragraph of their Step-1 proposal to establish eligibility. An
investigator need not be new to the Space Biology program to be eligible to submit an
application, but they must meet the criteria described in the paragraph immediately
above. The proposal of pilot or feasibility studies for this project type is acceptable,
however such proposals must demonstrate in the project description a clear path to
proposing a future full ground-based study, ISS flight experiment, or rapid turn-around
flight research in the future. Preliminary data may be included in proposals for PECRIs
but are not required.
PECRI proposals must be for ground-based studies to characterize the effects of lunar
regolith simulant exposure on plant biology, physiology, growth, development, and/or
plant and microbial interactions. PECRI proposals involving lunar simulant studies solely
with plant-relevant microbes are also acceptable and would be responsive to this
program element. However, such proposals must justify the use of any microbes and
their relevance to plant biology, either through preliminary data or cited literature. While
the inclusion of other space-relevant stressors, such as simulated microgravity, space-
relevant radiation, altered CO2 levels, and altered light spectra may be included, that is
not required.
PECRIs will be limited to one year in duration and $100,000 in total costs.
2.2 Animal Research Investigations
As human exploration prepares to go beyond Earth Orbit, Space Biology is advancing
its research priorities towards work that will demonstrate how animal model organisms
can Thrive In DEep Space (TIDES). The Space Biology Program’s efforts will focus on
determining the effects of multiple deep-space stressors including exposure to
potentially toxic regolith, ionizing radiation, and reduced gravity on multiple organisms.
Space Biology-supported animal research will study effects of environmental stressors
in spaceflight on model animal systems that will both inform future basic science work
and provide valuable information that will better enable human exploration of deep
space. The ultimate goal of the TIDES initiative is to enable long-duration space
missions and improve life on Earth through innovative research.
Proposals for Animal Research Investigations (ARIs) submitted to this program element
shall be for ground-based hypothesis-driven experiments that include the
characterization of the biological responses of vertebrate and/or invertebrate systems to
lunar regolith simulant exposure. This includes proposals for studies that utilize cellular
systems derived from animal models. ARI proposals involving lunar simulant studies
solely with animal-relevant microbes are also acceptable and would be responsive to
this program element. However, such proposals must justify the use of these microbes
and their relevance to animal biology, either through preliminary data or cited literature.
Other stressors apart from regolith simulant are not necessary to include in ARI
proposals. However, if included, additional stressors may be, but are not limited to,
simulated microgravity, space-relevant radiation, altered CO2 levels, etc.

E.9-6
ARI funded simulant studies suggestive of a novel biological discovery may be eligible
to receive a costed-extension for a third year of study using genuine Apollo regolith
supplied by NASA’s Apollo sample collection, pending sample availability as well as the
availability of program funds. Proposers, however, shall not provide a budget or a
schedule for any third year in ARI proposals, which have award durations of two years.
Requests for such extensions would be submitted by the principal investigator to NASA
Space Biology during the 15th month of the award performance period. Space Biology
will evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis. This process may involve the
submission of additional materials including a progress report by the requesting PI, as
well as a final review, decision, and allocation by the Astromaterials Acquisition and
Curation Office within the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES)
Division.
Please note: The use of genuine lunar regolith is not an experimental requirement for an
ARI proposal, as there is no guarantee by NASA that applicants will have access to
such materials or the funds to grant a costed extension. While Space Biology
encourages investigators to consider what types of experiments they may propose if
genuine regolith is available, the program does not recommend writing an application
that is dependent solely on its use. Proposals involving experiments to utilize lunar
regolith samples, therefore, must include contingencies regarding experimental design
and analysis (as necessary) in case genuine regolith samples are unavailable.
Please note the following for the proposed use of other stressors in combination with
lunar regolith simulant: while applicants planning to conduct additional radiation
experiments are free to propose experiments that use the radiation facilities at the
NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) located at the Brookhaven National Lab,
Space Biology will not directly pay the cost of their use. Proposers planning to use these
facilities must contact NSRL (https://www.bnl.gov/nsrl/), and appropriately account for
the cost of beam-time and facility use in their budget
ARIs will be limited to two years in duration and $300,000 in total costs.
Table E.9-A. Project Types, Study Requirements, Awards, and Durations
Max.
Eligible for Anticipated Award
Special Total
Project Type Genuine Number of Duration
Requirements Award
Regolith? Awards (Years)
Amount
Plant Model or Plant -
Plant Research
Relevant Microbes, Yes $300,000 4 3
Investigation
Regolith Simulant
Plant Model or Plant -
Small Scale Plant Relevant Microbes,
Research Investigation and use of GLDS No $100,000 1
(GeneLab) data set(s)/produce
data to add to GLDS 5
Small Scale Plant Plant Model or Plant -
Research Investigation Relevant Microbes, No $100,000 1
(Experimental) Regolith Simulant

E.9-7
 Plant Model or Plant -
Plant Early Career
Relevant Microbes, No $100,000 1
Research Investigation
Regolith Simulant
Animal Model or
Animal Research Animal-Relevant
Yes $300,000 2 2
Investigation Microbes, Regolith
Simulant

2.3 Information Regarding the Acquisition of Regolith Simulant and Genuine Regolith
2.3.1 Regolith Simulant
To be responsive to this program element, applicants proposing studies using regolith
simulant must use material that is formulated to resemble regolith present within the
Lunar Highlands of the Moon’s south pole, near the candidate landing sites proposed
for the Artemis III Mission. More information about the properties and composition of
this material, as well as details and/or recommendations regarding the acquisition of
such material, will be included within the Mandatory Information Supplement that will be
released on NSPIRES around when Step-2 invitations are announced. NASA will
update the bold notice at the beginning of this document and will post a notice on the
NSPIRES webpage for this Program Element when the supplement is released.
Proposers must consult the information contained within that supplement. Failure to do
so may result in a Step-2 proposal being declined without review.
“The Astromaterials Research & Exploration Science Lunar Regolith Simulant” webpage
located at https://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/projects/simulants may serve as a useful resource
for proposers that provides general information about regolith simulant during Step-1
proposal preparation.
2.3.2 Genuine Lunar Regolith Requests
Additional details for requests for access to genuine lunar regolith will be included in the
Mandatory Information Supplement which will be released on NSPIRES shortly after
around the time that Step-2 invitations are announced. Further instructions for these
requests will likely also be provided to eligible awardees during the award performance
period. [Corrected January 5, 2023]
Currently, it is expected that such requests will first be submitted to the Space Biology
Program by PRI/ARI awardees during the 15th month of the award performance period.
After an initial review, Space Biology will then decide which requests to further evaluate
on a case-by-case basis and will likely request additional materials from investigators
for further review. The program will then decide which requests to move forward and will
work with selected awardees to submit a formal request for this material to the
Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/checklist.cfm. Details of this process are still
being finalized between the Space Biology and ARES Program, so the steps outlined in
this paragraph are subject to change before the final instructions for these requests are
made available. Final decisions, however, will involve review by both the Space Biology
Program and NASA’s Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office within ARES.

E.9-8
3. Proposal Submission
This program element will use a binding two-step process described in Section IV(b)vii
of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and will follow the general submission
requirements as described in Section IV(b) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation. The Step-1 proposal is a required prerequisite for submission of a full Step-
2 proposal. Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal and are invited to submit a
Step-2 proposal are eligible to submit a Step-2 proposal. Refer to Sections 4.1 and 6.1
of this program element for more information on this topic. Proposals submitted after the
due dates given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022 will be considered late and may be
declined without review (see SMD’s policy on late proposals).
Every organization that intends to submit a proposal to NASA in response to this
ROSES program element must be registered in the NASA Solicitation and Proposal
Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES), regardless of the electronic
system used to submit proposals. Proposers from new organizations that have not
applied for NASA grants or contracts are recommended to begin their organization
registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) at least 30 business days
before the Step-1 submission deadline. This is a prerequisite to registering the
organization in NSPIRES. Proposers must then complete organization registration and
proposer affiliation in NSPIRES. The SAM web site is https://www.sam.gov. All team
members known at the time of Step-2 proposal submission (and any persons identified
in the proposal as having significant roles, paid or unpaid, in the project) must be
registered in NSPIRES and confirm their organizational affiliation when added to a
proposal before the PI organization official can submit. Proposal submission questions
received will be answered and published in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
document. This FAQ will be posted on the NSPIRES page for this program element and
will be updated periodically between solicitation release and the Step-2 proposal due
date. Any supplemental information will also be posted on this page. It is the
responsibility of the submitter to access NSPIRES to check on these updates.
3.1 Required Certifications
To submit a Step-1 or Step-2 proposal in NSPIRES, the Authorized Organizational
Representative (AOR) of the proposing organization must read the "Certification of
Compliance with Applicable Executive Orders and U.S. Code" and click the checkbox to
accept the certifications. The AOR's agreement on the NSPIRES Cover Page
automatically certifies that the proposing organization has read and is compliant with all
the certifications, assurances, and representations identified in NSPIRES.
Proposers intending to use Grants.gov (https://grants.gov) for Step-1 proposal
submission should contact Dr. Guillaume Vignaux (gvignaux@nasaprs.com).
4. Proposal Content
This call for proposals is part of SMD's ROSES solicitation. All proposers are
encouraged to read the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation to learn the default
guidelines. However, in the cases of any conflicts, this program element takes
precedence, followed by the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, and then the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. Statutes and regulations always apply and take precedence
over any solicitation or guidance. In general, this program element is designed to be

E.9-9
self-contained. However, if further guidance is required, the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation, and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers are available resources. are
available resources.
4.1 Step-1 Proposal
Proposers may use either NSPIRES (https://nspires.nasaprs.com) or Grants.gov
(https://grants.gov) for Step-1 proposal submission. Grants.gov will not be available for
invited Step-2 submissions. Step-1 proposal submission and invitation is required to
submit a Step-2 proposal. Regardless of the electronic submission system used for
Step-1 proposals, all proposers, team members, organization officials, and the
submitting organization must be registered with NSPIRES before proposal submission.
All Step-1 proposals must include the appropriate required electronic forms available
through either of the two proposal submission systems, NSPIRES or Grants.gov. In
general, each proposal shall include a Proposal Cover Page and a PDF document
consisting of the required elements listed below.
The Step-1 Proposal Document must contain the following components (in the following
order):
a. The study type (plant vs animal), Project Type, and relevance of the proposed
project to the research emphasis (Section 2) must be clearly indicated in the
proposal. For PECRI proposals, the date that the proposing PI has received their
terminal degree (or end of residency) must also be included with this information.
b. The scientific objectives and specific aims of the proposal.
c. The potential impact of the research to NASA’s Space Biology program.
The length of the Step-1 Proposal Document is not to exceed 2 pages. Budget should
not be included with the Step-1 proposal. Instructions for completing the Proposal Cover
Page in NSPIRES and Grants.gov are available in Sections IV(b)iv and IV(b)v,
respectively, of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Proposers intending to use
Grants.gov should contact Dr. Guillaume Vignaux (gvignaux@nasaprs.com) Senior
Scientist, NASA Research and Education Support Services, to ensure that the
Grants.gov system is available for proposal submission. Proposal submissions that do
not include the required Proposal Cover Page Elements (including certifications) may be
deemed non-compliant and declined without review. Team members known at the time
of submission should be included in the proposal team in NSPIRES. Team members
may be changed before Step-2 submission if invited.
Step-1 proposals must be submitted by an Authorized Organizational Representative
(AOR) and are due by the date to be given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022.
4.2 Step-2 Proposal
Step-2 proposals will only be accepted from Step-1 proposers that have been invited to
submit Step-2 proposals. A courtesy email will be generated by NSPIRES as a reminder
to check full proposal invitation status; however, it is the responsibility of the submitter to
log in to NSPIRES to receive their full proposal invitation status.
Step-2 proposals must be submitted via NSPIRES (https://nspires.nasaprs.com). The
NSPIRES system will guide proposers through submission of all required proposal

E.9-10
information. Select “prior-phase proposal” when creating a Step-2 proposal. This will
automatically transfer some of the proposal information from the Step-1 proposal to the
Step-2 proposal. Proposal team members carried over from a Step-1 proposal may
need to login and re-confirm their affiliation and participation on the proposal. Team
members may be changed between Step-1 and Step-2 proposals.
The Step-2 proposals consist of electronic forms (i.e., the NSPIRES cover page; see
Section 4.2.1 below) and two attachments: Proposal Document (see Section 4.2.2
below) and Total Budget (see Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation), and Section 5 of this program element).
Step-2 proposals are due by the date given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022.
4.2.1 Proposal Cover Page
Proposers must fill out the NSPIRES Proposal Cover Pages, as described in Section
IV(b)iv of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and section 2.8 of the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. For additional information about the contents of the cover
page refer to Table 1 of the ROSES-2022.
4.2.1.1 Proposal Team
All named participants (which includes all individuals mentioned by name in the
proposal regardless of whether they will received funding or not) must register
themselves in NSPIRES, be assigned one of the roles defined in Appendix B of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers, and confirm their participation. Failure to do so may
result in a proposal's decline without review. Unnamed participants (e.g., “2
undergraduate assistants”) need not complete this step.
The organization specified on the cover page for a team member must be the
organization through which the team member would work and receive funding while
participating in the proposed effort. If the individual has multiple affiliations, only one
organization may be designated to receive funding. If a team member has affiliations
with both U.S. and non-U.S. organizations, and chooses to receive funding through a
U.S. affiliation, they may not also receive funding from a non-U.S. organization through
their non-U.S. affiliation for the same work, or vice versa. Team members are asked to
ensure that their contact information in NSPIRES is up to date. Changes can be made
using the "Account Management" link on the "NSPIRES Options" page.
4.2.2 Proposal Document
All Step-2 proposals must include a Proposal Document consisting of the
Scientific/Technical Section (a.k.a. Project Description) and all other required elements
described herein. The Proposal Document must include the sections listed in Table E.9-
B below, in the order listed, as one searchable, unlocked PDF file.
If any required sections are missing from the Proposal Document, the proposal may be
declared non-compliant and declined without review. No additional sections/appendices
beyond what is specified in Table E.9-B are allowed, with the following exceptions: a
Title Page that states the name of the proposal and the proposing organization as well
as a page that lists all the abbreviations used in the Scientific/Technical Section may be
included in the proposal. The Title Page may include project or organization logos but

E.9-11
shall not include additional proposal information such as abstracts. The page may also
be used to provide statements regarding export control.
With the exception of the Summary Chart described immediately below in Table E.9-B
and the title page, all elements within the Proposal Attachment must adhere to the
following formatting requirements:
• Page size is 8.5x11 inches.
• Pages shall have at least 1-inch (2.5 cm) margins on all sides.
• Proposals shall be single-spaced, in 12-point font (fonts cannot exceed 15
characters per horizontal inch), English-language text, and formatted using one
column.
• Figure captions may be in 10-point font.
• The font size for symbols in equations shall be consistent with this guideline.
• Proposers may not adjust or otherwise condense a font or line from its default
appearance.
• Any other formatting requirements described in Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation.
Proposals that exceed page limits, contain extra sections that are not specifically
requested or allowed by this program element, or violate the formatting rules described
immediately above, may have excess text and/or sections redacted or may be declared
noncompliant and returned without review.
Complete information about many of the section requirements listed in Table E.9-B
below can be found in the provided links and references. Additional instructions only for
sections that have requirements that differ from those described in the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation or the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, see below.
Table E.9-B: Required Elements for Proposal Document
Proposal Section Title Page Limit Reference for More
Section # Information
1 Table of Contents 1 Table 1 of ROSES-2022
2 Summary Chart 1 Section 4.2.2.1 of this
document
3 Response to Prior Review 2 Section 4.2.2.2 of this
(if applicable) document
4 Scientific/Technical 12 for PRIs, Section 4.2.2.3 of this
Section (a.k.a. Project and ARIs document
Description) 7 for SSPRIs,
and PECRIs
5 Schedule 1 Section 4.2.2.4 of this
document
6 Management Approach No page limit Section 4.2.2.5 of this
(Includes Table of document
Personnel and Work
Effort)
7 Statistical Approach 1 Section 4.2.2.6 of this

E.9-12
 document
8 References No page limit Table 1 of ROSES-2022
9 Data Management Plan 2 Section 4.2.2.7 of this
document
10 Biographical Sketches/ 2 for PI, Table 1 of ROSES-2022
Curriculum Vitae (CVs) 1 for Co-Is
11 Facilities and Equipment No page limit Table 1 of ROSES-2022
12 Budget with Budget No page limit Section IV(b)(iii) of the
Narrative and Budget ROSES-2022 Summary of
Details Solicitation
Section 4.2.2.8 of this
document
Current and Pending No page limit Table 1 of ROSES-2022
13
Support
Letters of Support, No page limit Table 1 of ROSES-2022
including Letters of and Section III(b) of the
14 Certification from a ROSES-2022 Summary of
Foreign Agency (if Solicitation
applicable).
Vertebrate Animal and 2 Pages Section 4.2.2.9 of this
Higher Order Cephalopod document (Required only if
15 Section (VACS) proposing experiments
requiring vertebrates or
cephalopods)
Please note that the descriptions immediately below only cover sections of a proposal
that have requirements that differ from those described in the ROSES-2022 Summary
of Solicitation and/or the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Proposers must ensure that
their Proposal Document contains ALL the sections listed above in Table E.9-B.
4.2.2.1 Summary Chart
A single-page Summary Chart must be included in the Step-2 proposal PDF to
summarize the main points of the proposal. The chart will be used to represent the
proposal during the review process. The chart is intended to provide a quick sense of
the proposed effort and should stand alone (i.e., not require the full proposal to be
understood). It must not include any proprietary or export-controlled data, as NASA may
make the Summary Charts of selected proposals available to the public after selections
are announced. Proposal submission, in accordance with this requirement, will indicate
the proposer’s consent to public release of the Summary Chart. The Summary Chart
should be included in landscape format, should occupy the entire page (except for
margins), and shall not exceed one page. A template of a suitable Summary Chart is
available on the NSPIRES webpage for this program element under Other Documents.
4.2.2.2 Response to Prior Review (if applicable)
Investigators submitting a proposal in response to this program element, and whose
submission within the last three years to any NASA life sciences (limited to Space
Biology, Human Research Program [HRP], and Translational Research Institute for

E.9-13
Space Health [TRISH]) sponsored research announcement that was not accepted and
included similar specific aims, are required to submit an explanation of how the current
proposal addresses criticisms from previous review cycles. When provided, this
explanation shall be presented preceding the research description as part of the main
proposal attachment and will be limited to two pages. This explanation should include
changes made to the current proposal as a result of review comments and/or an
explanation of why previous review comments are not applicable to the current
proposal.
This section is limited to two pages and is not part of the page-limited
Scientific/Technical Section (a.k.a. Project Description). If NASA deems that a current
proposal is a resubmission of a previous proposal, then proposal reviewers will be
provided with the evaluations of the original submission as part of the merit review to
assist them in the case that they determine it is relevant. Proposers who have questions
concerning their response to a previous review are encouraged to contact Dr. Guillaume
Vignaux at NASA Research and Education Support Services, at
gvignaux@nasaprs.com.
Note: Investigators resubmitting a proposal in response to this program element may
submit a life-science proposal with similar hypothesis(es) and aims a total of three times
(original submission plus two resubmissions). Significant changes must be made to the
proposal hypothesis(es) and specific aims for consideration after the third attempt or the
proposal will be declined without further review.
4.2.2.3 Scientific/Technical Section (a.k.a. Project Description)
The length of the project description of the proposal shall not exceed 12 pages using
standard (12-point) type for PRI and ARI proposals and shall not exceed 7 pages for
SSPRI and PECRI proposals. The format (fonts, margins, etc.) of this section must
follow the guidelines for the standard proposal style format described in Section 4.2.2
above and in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Figures must be included in the
page limit of the project description; however, the figure captions may be font 10. Each
proposal shall at the minimum contain the following key informational elements:
1) The scientific objectives of the proposed experiments.
2) A detailed description of the experimental design that will achieve the scientific
objectives, including scientific rationale and justification of the experimental
design. If the proposed project involves the use of GeneLab data sets, then a
scientific rationale and justification for their use should also be provided.
3) Descriptions of potential pitfalls and alternative approaches.
The hypotheses and specific aims of the proposed research shall be clearly stated. The
proposed research plan and science objectives from all participants, including any
international team members, must be included in the submitted proposal. The main
body of the proposal shall be a detailed statement of the work to be undertaken and
should include objectives and expected significance; relation to the present state of
knowledge; and relation to previous work done on the project and to related work in
progress elsewhere. The statement should outline the plan of work, including the broad
design of experiments to be undertaken and a description of experimental methods and

E.9-14
procedures. The project description should also address the evaluation factors in these
instructions and any specific factors in this program element.
Additional requirements for this section involving the use of a specific reference
simulant in addition to the Lunar Highlands simulant (see Section 2.3) may be included
in a future update to this program element that will be released on NSPIRES around the
time that Step-2 invitations are announced. Proposers will be expected to check the
NSPIRES page hosting Program Element E.9 for this update during the preparation of
their Step-2 proposals and follow the instructions. Failure to do so may result in a
proposal being declined without review.
This section shall contain enough detail to enable reviewers to make informed
judgments about the overall merit of the proposed research and about the probability
that the investigators will be able to accomplish their stated objectives with current
resources and the resources requested.
4.2.2.4 Schedule
Each submission must include a top-level schedule that outlines the timeline (by month
or quarter of the year for each year of the award) for completion of the proposed specific
aims, as well as any proposed sub-aims. The schedule must be presented as a table or
as a simple, but accurately labeled, figure and may be in landscape orientation.
Regardless of the format chosen, the presented schedule shall not exceed one page in
length.
4.2.2.5 Management Approach
The Management Approach section shall contain the management structure for the
proposal personnel; any substantial collaboration(s); any proposed use of consultant(s);
and a description of the expected contribution to the proposed effort, by task and sub-
task, by the PI and each team member, regardless of whether or not they derive support
from the proposed budget. This section must include the Table of Personnel and Work
Effort as described in Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, that
simply lists all of the planned work commitment, by person or role, without any technical
details.
4.2.2.6 Statistical Approach
A statistical section with proper justification must be included. If a statistical section is
not applicable, a brief statement must be included to justify why it is unnecessary. The
statistical approach section of the proposal is limited to one page. If additional statistical
analysis material is included in the project description, it must be referenced in this
section.
4.2.2.7 Data Management Plan
Requirements of the Data Management Plan (DMP) are described in Section II(c) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and in Section 1.1 of E.1 The Biological and
Physical Sciences Research Overview. The DMP must describe how data generated
through the course of the proposed research will be shared and preserved, including the
timeframe. All award recipients are required to (1) make all analytical models, tools, and
software produced under the funded research, as well as related documentation,

E.9-15
available to NASA, (2) when applicable, upload all relevant data and associated
metadata to the NASA GeneLab Data Systems (GLDS; https://genelab.nasa.gov), and
(3) upload as-accepted manuscript versions of peer-reviewed publications that result
from awards into NASA Pub Space. Only DMPs that incorporate these requirements are
acceptable for proposals submitted in response to this program element. This section
will be limited to two pages. For additional information, please refer to the BPS Scientific
Data Management Policy.
4.2.2.8 Budget with Budget Narrative and Budget Details
As described in Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, the costs
of salary, fringe, or overhead should not be included anywhere in the Step-2 Proposal
PDF seen by peer reviewers. That includes the Budget with Budget Narrative and
Details elements of the Step-2 proposal PDF. Instead, this information must be provided
on the NSPIRES web page budget and in a separately uploaded "Total Budget" PDF
file (refer to Section 5 for more details). Proposers are strongly encouraged to consult
the Salaries, Overhead, and ROSES Proposal Budgets walkthrough at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor, for more
information.
Note: For the budget justification in the main Proposal Attachment PDF, proposers may
refer to the time, but not costs, for a subaward that involves salary, fringe or overhead,
e.g., “1.5 months/year are allocated for Co-I Dr. Claire Finn, as can be seen in the Table
of Personnel and Work Effort. Dr. Finn will be funded via a subaward to the Saturnian
School of Medical Sciences. The total cost for that subaward is given in the NSPIRES
cover page budget in Section F line 5 and is included in the separately uploaded Total
Budget PDF file but is not included here in the proposal.”
4.2.2.9 Vertebrate Animal and Higher Order Cephalopod Section (if applicable)
Each submission to this program element that requires the use of vertebrate animals
and/or higher order cephalopods must address the five points outlined in the Vertebrate
Animal and Higher Order Cephalopod Section (VACS) instructional document posted on
NSPIRES alongside this document. This response should be presented as part of the
main proposal PDF and is limited to two pages. These two pages are not considered
part of the project description. A sample VACS is provided in the VACS instructional
document posted on NSPIRES alongside this document.
5. Total Budget PDF
When submitting the Step-2 proposal, proposers must upload a separate Total Budget
PDF as an additional attachment that is separate from the Proposal Attachment PDF.
Refer to Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation, and the Salaries, Overhead, and ROSES Proposal Budgets walkthrough at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor
Note: The Total Budget PDF is required and failure to provide it may result in proposal
being declared non-compliant and returned without review.

E.9-16
6. Review and Selection Process
6.1 Step-1 Relevancy and Compatibility Review
Each Step-1 proposal will be evaluated by NASA to determine whether the proposal is
relevant to the topics solicited by the program element, and whether the PI meets the
eligibility criteria. To be relevant, the proposal must address the research emphasis of
the program element and propose experiments using appropriate organisms as
described in Section 2. Those proposers whose proposals are relevant will be invited to
submit full Step-2 proposals.
6.2 Step-2 Proposal Compliance Review
NASA will conduct an administrative review of all Step-2 proposals to prescreen them
for compliance with the requirements of this program element. Proposals that are non-
compliant in any way with the requirements listed in this program element, including
exceeding page limits for a given section or that include sections not listed in Table E.9-
B, or with requirements described in Section 4.1 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, may have excess
sections or text redacted or may be declined without further review.
The Step-2 proposal compliance review’s elements include but are not limited to:
a. Submission of a complete proposal with all required elements (refer to Section
4.2 of this program element).
b. Submission of a proposal that is consistent with the page/format limitations (refer
to Section 4.2 of this program element).
c. Submission of a proposal that involves an appropriate organism.
d. Submission of a proposal from an eligible applicant (refer to Section III of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation), and Section 2.1.3 for additional eligibility
requirements for PECRIs .
e. Submission of a proposal that clarifies that the participation of any individual
associated with a foreign institution is on a no-exchange of funds basis with a letter
from their supporting organization (refer to Table 1 and Section III(b) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation).
f. Submission of a proposal that is within the budgets indicated in this program
element.
6.3 Step-2 Proposal Review and Evaluation Criteria
Compliant Step-2 proposals will be evaluated for Intrinsic (Science) Merit, Cost, and
Relevance consistent with Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
6.3.1 Intrinsic Merit Review of Proposals
Assessment of merit will include the suitability of the proposal based on the factors
below (which are derived from those defined in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers).
• The scientific quality of the proposed project, including, but not limited to, the
scientific rationale and the expected significance and/or impact of the proposed
work.

E.9-17
 o This includes an evaluation of whether the proposal contains sufficient
evidence in the form of preliminary data and/or citations to support the
hypothesis(es) that are to be tested.
o If microbial studies are being proposed, this will include an evaluation of
whether the proposal contains adequate justification for the use of these
microbes and well as supporting evidence for their relevance to plant or
animal biology, in the form of either preliminary data or cited literature.
• The overall technical quality of the proposed work, including, but not limited to,
the quality of the management plan and project timeline for carrying out the work
and the effectiveness and resilience of the proposed experimental designs,
methods, techniques, and approaches for achieving the proposed goals and/or
objectives.
• Whether the proposal includes adequate and/or reasonable discussion of
potential pitfalls and alternative approaches.
• Whether the range of sample sizes for the proposed study are reasonable and
properly justified; whether the investigator has assumed reasonable effect
magnitudes and variability estimates. Whether the statistics adequately account
for type I and type II errors. The thoroughness and adequacy of the data analysis
plan, and the appropriateness to the sampling and other constraints associated
with the type of research that is being proposed.
• The qualifications, capabilities, and related expertise of personnel demonstrated
by the proposal (e.g., publications, delivered products, and other measures of
productivity and/or expertise) that will affect the likelihood of achieving the
objectives. For investigators in the early stages of their independent careers, the
reviewers will assess if they have appropriate expertise and training. For mid to
late career investigators, reviewers will assess if they have been productive in
their careers in terms of publications and results.
• Facilities, instruments, equipment, and other resources or support systems
presented in the proposal that will affect the likelihood of achieving the proposed
objectives.
• The quality of the data management plan.
A panel of scientific subject matter experts will evaluate the intrinsic (science) merit of
the proposals. This panel of experts may include non-NASA and other non-Government
personnel. The number and diversity of expertise required will be determined by the
response to this program element.
6.3.2 Internal NASA Step-2 Proposal assessment of Cost and Relevance,
Programmatic Alignment/Balance, and Feasibility
Step-2 proposals receiving a favorable science merit score may be reviewed by NASA
for Cost and Relevance. This review will include the programmatic alignment/balance
and cost of proposals that are scientifically meritorious. This review will be conducted by
NASA program scientists and managers. Evaluation of the cost of a proposed effort
includes consideration of the reasonableness of the proposed cost and the relationship
of the proposed cost to available funds.
Programmatic Alignment is determined by the contribution of the proposed work to the
balance of scientific and technical issues identified by the program. Space Biology will

E.9-18
also determine programmatic relevance by evaluating how a proposal will answer
scientific gaps outlined by the National Research Council "Decadal Survey"
(Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a
New Era (2011)), the “Decadal Midterm Assessment” (A Midterm Assessment of
Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences Research at
NASA). Programmatic relevance/balance will include an evaluation of how the proposed
work may help achieve an appropriate balance of scientific and technical tasks required
by NASA.
7. Selection and Award
Selection procedures will be consistent with the procedures identified in Section V(b) of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and Appendix D of the 2022 NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. The Selection Official for this program element will be the
Director of the Biological and Physical Sciences Division, Science Mission Directorate,
or designee, at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
7.1 Award Information
All awards from this program element to non-governmental organizations will be in the
form of grants or cooperative agreements. NASA will determine the most appropriate
award vehicle. For cooperative agreements, NASA's contributions are to assist in the
implementation of experiments that require NASA resources or facilities (if applicable).
Please refer to Table E9-A for the anticipated number of awards to be made from this
program element, as well as anticipated award amounts. Selected proposals are
expected to be funded in one-year increments. The final funding duration will depend on
proposal requirements, peer review panel recommendations, and continuing progress of
the activity.
NASA may support projects as they were proposed, or may offer to fund only selected
parts, or all or part of what was proposed for a shorter duration, or a combination of
duration and content. Space Biology reserves the right to organize selected projects into
teams to maximize the government’s return on investment and address programmatic
priorities, which may or may not entail changes to existing organizational structures in
selected proposals. Awards may depend on acceptable revised budgets, statements of
work, data management plans, or other elements of proposals described in ROSES-
2022 or in the 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Space Biology reserves the right
to share data between selected projects in order to maximize the government’s return
on investment and address programmatic priorities.
8. Post Award Considerations
8.1 Required Travel
Proposals for projects with a duration of two or more years must include travel costs for
the PI to participate in the American Society for Gravitational and Space Research
(ASGSR) annual meetings starting on the second year of the project period. The PIs are
required to attend the meetings to report on the progress of the project through a poster
or an oral presentation. ASGSR meetings are typically held domestically in October or
November. Proposers may use past ASGSR venues as examples for budgeting

E.9-19
purposes: Houston TX, (2022), Baltimore, MD, (2021), Denver, CO (2019), Washington,
DC (2018), Seattle, WA (2017), Cleveland, OH (2016).
8.2 Post-Award Program Reporting/Individual Researcher Reporting
In addition to the reporting described in Sections II(c) and VI(c) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation, recipients of awards made through this program element are
subject to the following reporting requirements.
8.2.1 Annual Reporting and Task Book Reporting
The PI shall provide an annual written report to NASA on or before the anniversary of
the start of funding. This information will be used to assess the degree of progress of
the project. This information will consist primarily of:
• An abstract;
• A bibliographic list of publications;
• Copies of publications;
• A statement of progress, including a comparison with the originally proposed
work schedule
A component of the annual report will be used for the NASA Task Book
(https://taskbook.nasaprs.com). The Task Book includes descriptions of all peer-
reviewed Life and Physical Sciences activities funded by NASA's Biological and
Physical Sciences Division. The Task Book is an invaluable source of information for
NASA biological, biomedical, and physical sciences researchers, as well as the external
scientific and technical communities.
8.2.2 Final Report
A final report must be provided to NASA at the end of the award funding period,
including a detailed listing of all peer-reviewed publications. This information will consist
primarily of:
• Statement of the specific objectives;
• Significance of the work;
• Background;
• Overall progress during the performance period;
• Narrative discussion of technical approaches including problems encountered;
• Accomplishments related to approach;
• An appendix with bibliography and copies of all publications and reports.
Any publications or other public materials containing data are particularly important to
include in the report.
9. Space Biology Research Resources
9.1 Current Research Portfolios for the NASA Space Biology Program
Investigators are encouraged to review summaries of currently funded NASA Space
Biology Program projects by accessing the NASA Task Book at
https://taskbook.nasaprs.com. Please see Section 8.3 above for more information

E.9-20
9.2. Research Data and Sample Repositories
NASA maintains a suite of tools to enable accessibility and reusability of biological data
from space-related experiments. Proposers are encouraged to review the contents of
these archives to aid in proposal development, and to utilize them during research
activities. Grant awardees are required to submit data and samples to appropriate
repositories according to the BPS Scientific Data Management Policy.
To improve interoperability, NASA integrated two biological databases, Ames Life
Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA) and GeneLab, into a centralized data system called the
Open Science Data Repositories (OSDR, https://osdr.nasa.gov).
The Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA) is the official repository of non-human
science data spanning a broad range of biological levels involving data from tissues,
organs, whole organisms, physiology, and behavior. GeneLab is an open science multi-
omics repository hosting transcriptomics, metagenomics, epigenomics, proteomics, and
metabolomics data. Studies are comprised of data from model organisms including
microbes, plants, fruit flies, rodents, and humans. In addition, the data repository
includes metadata searches across several external omics databases.
The Life Sciences Data Archive (LSDA) is now part of the NASA Life Sciences Portal
(NLSP https://nlsp.nasa.gov/explore/lsdahome). The LSDA is a publicly accessible
archive of data from NASA-funded spaceflight, flight-analog studies, and ground-based
life sciences research experiments. The LSDA includes human (astronaut and ground
test subject), animal, and plant studies.
The NASA Biological Institutional Scientific Collection (NBISC) is a biorepository of non-
human samples from NASA-funded spaceflight investigations and correlative ground
studies (https://www.nasa.gov/ames/research/space-biosciences/nbisc). The primary
purpose of the NBISC is to document, preserve, and make the collection available to
the research community. The Space Microbial Culture Collection (SMCC) is a subset of
NBISC dedicated to managing microbial material cultured from Space Biology funded
missions and research activities. Researchers may request samples from NBISC to
support Space Biology studies.
10. Summary of Key Information
Expected total budget See Table E.9-A in Section 2 of this program
element
Anticipated Number of new awards See Table E.9-A in Section 2 of this program
pending adequate proposals of merit element
Maximum duration of awards See Table E.9-A in Section 2 of this program
element
Due Date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due Date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of investigation CY 2024 Q1
Page limit for the central 12 Pages for PRIs and ARIs; 7 Pages for
Scientific/Technical Section of SSPRIs and PECRIs
proposals (See Section 4.2.2 of this document)

E.9-21
Relevance
General information and overview of
this program element
General Requirements of the contents
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
preparation and submission of
proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
Program
This program element is relevant to
Objective 1.2 of NASA's Strategic Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program
element are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation
See Table 1 of ROSES-2022 Section IV of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation,
and Section 3 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required;
no hardcopy is allowed.
https://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
NNH22ZDA001N-SBR. Proposers intending
to use Grants.gov (https://www.grants.gov/)
should contact Guillaume Vignaux:
gvignaux@nasaprs.com
For additional help with Grants.gov the
Grants.gov help desk is available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726
Sharmila Bhattacharya
Space Biology Program
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: spacebiology@nasaprs.com
E.9-22
E.10 SPACE BIOLOGY: ANIMAL RESEARCH
NOTICE: Amended October 13, 2022. This program element will not be
solicited in ROSES this year. It is anticipated that this program
element will be solicited in ROSES-2023.
1. Scope of Program
The NASA Space Biology (SB) Program Element falls within the Biological and Physical
Sciences (BPS) Division, formerly known as the Space Life and Physical Sciences
Research and Applications Division. BPS moved from the Human Exploration and
Operations Mission Directorate to the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) in 2020.
The Space Biology Program solicits and funds research that will increase NASA’s
understanding of how living systems respond to the unique environments that are
encountered during space exploration, including the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) environment
inside the International Space Station (ISS) and deep space conditions beyond LEO,
including transit to and maintenance in Lunar and Martian environments. More
information about the Space Biology Program can be found at:
https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/programs/space-biology. The framework for
the Space Biology Program is described in its Science Plan (2016-2025). The Space
Biology Science Plan defines over-arching guiding questions focused on integrated
biological approaches to understanding physiological, anatomical, and molecular
mechanisms and networks that respond to and/or govern the acclimation, adaptation,
and other responses of living systems to the space exploration environment. The 2011
National Research Council Decadal Survey, "Recapturing a Future for Space
Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era" provides guidance for
further refining the guiding questions to specific scientific priorities. Additionally, new
priorities were identified in the 2017 National Research Council Report "A Midterm
Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences
Research at NASA."
2. Research Emphasis
When it is solicited this program element is focused on Animal Biology and related
studies that are designed to understand the basic mechanisms animals use to adapt to
the spaceflight environment, and the multiple stressors contained therein.
3. Point of Contact
Sharmila Bhattacharya
Biological and Physical Sciences Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: spacebiology@nasaprs.com

E.10-1
E.11 RESEARCH PATHFINDER FOR BEYOND LOW EARTH ORBIT SPACE BIOLOGY
INVESTIGATIONS
NOTICE: Amended October 11, 2022. The Step-2 proposal due date
has been delayed by two weeks due to the impact of Hurricane Ian.
Invited Step-2 proposals are now due October 27, 2022.
Amended August 11, 2022. This amendment releases the official text
and due dates for this program element, which was previously
released as a draft for community comment. Proposals to this
program will be submitted by a binding two-step process in which the
Notice of Intent is replaced by a mandatory Step-1 proposal that must
be submitted by an organization's Authorized Organizational
Representative. Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal are
eligible to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal (see Section 4 of this
program element). Step-1 proposals are due September 1, 2022, and
Step-2 proposals are due October 13, 2022. Step-1 proposals may be
submitted via Grants.gov or the NASA Solicitation and Proposal
Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES). Step-2
Proposals must be submitted via NSPIRES.
The following changes from the previous draft version of this program
element should be noted: 1) Information regarding potential future
updates to mission constraints and allotments and their potential
effects on award selections have been added to Sections 1
(Introduction) and 7.1 (Award Considerations); 2) Section 2.1
(Technical Requirements/Specifics) was rearranged for the purposes
of clarification and to remove redundancies in its subsections; 3) The
length of the Step-1 proposal has been increased to 3 pages, and
should now include a brief contingency plan that addresses potential
changes to mission constraints and allotments should they occur
prior to launch; 4) Section 4.2.2 has been updated: specifically, the
requirements of the “Scientific/Technical Section (a.k.a. Project
Description)” which now includes a contingency plan that addresses
potential changes to mission constraints and allotments prior to
launch, as well as additional clarifications made to the “Proposal
Budget” section; 5) Sections 6.1 (Step-1 Relevancy and Compatibility
Review) and 6.3.1 (Intrinsic Merit Review of Proposals) have been
updated to reflect additions to review criteria involving the updated
requirements for Step-1 and Step-2 proposals.
Any questions or comments about this announcement should be
directed to the Point of Contact (POC) in Section 10. This includes
questions about the use of BioServe’s Plate Habitat hardware.
1. Introduction and Funding Opportunity Summary
The NASA Space Biology Program, through this program element, is soliciting
proposals for biological research experiments with invertebrates to be conducted on the
Artemis II mission. The goal of these projects will be to study early changes in

E.11-1
physiological systems due to exposure to the deep space environment. To be
responsive to this announcement, proposed research must involve only one of the
following model organisms targeted in this call: Drosophila melanogaster (fruit flies) or
Caenorhabditis elegans (nematodes).
Selection of projects for this opportunity is contingent on the updated mission plan and
whether the Artemis II mission is able to accommodate the program’s biological
payloads; therefore, all proposed research must fit within the hardware constraints
described within this document (e.g., see Section 2.1). The mass, volume, and crew
time allotments/constraints described in this program element are based on current
Orion Integration Team estimates; however, they are subject to change before the
mission launch date. The Space Biology Program reserves the right to 1) modify a
selected project if necessary to fit reductions to these allotments, 2) deselect a project if
it is found to be incompatible with future changes of allotments or constraints, or 3)
select no projects from this opportunity if none are found to be compatible with any
updated allotments or constraints.
1.1 Background
Artemis II, the first crewed flight of the Space Launch System and Orion, will take four
astronauts into lunar orbit for the first time in more than 50 years. The Artemis II mission
is scheduled to last for approximately 10 days and will take place using the Orion
spacecraft, which will make two orbits around Earth before transiting to the Moon.
The Artemis II mission provides a unique opportunity to conduct integrated systems
biology investigations using simple invertebrates to understand how deep space
radiation and its combination with microgravity and other spaceflight stressors will affect
physiological systems. Deep space radiation cannot be accurately replicated in Earth-
based analog facilities or on the International Space Station (ISS), due to differences in
the dose rates and total doses of ionizing radiation experienced in the deep space
environment versus low Earth orbit (LEO) within the van Allen Belt. The Artemis II
mission provides the ability to study biological responses associated with the deep
space environment. Furthermore, the opportunity for sample return allows for detailed
post-flight sample analyses. The data obtained from experiments flown on this mission
will allow a comparison to data obtained from previous invertebrate studies on the
Space Shuttle and ISS. Collectively, the studies from the Artemis missions combined
with the LEO data will aid in identifying and understanding the effects on physiological
systems that are unique to deep space environmental exposure.
2. Scope of This Program Element
Space Biology, through this program element, is soliciting proposals for biological
research experiments to be flown beyond LEO as internal payloads on the capsule of
the Orion spacecraft during the upcoming Artemis II mission. To be eligible, proposals
to this program element must utilize and will be limited to only one of the two following
model organisms: Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) or Caenorhabditis elegans
(nematode). Proposals requiring Artemis II payloads that utilize both of these
organisms, or different animal models, may be declared non-compliant and declined
without review.

E.11-2
Proposed experiments shall not use Orion-provided power for functionality. Proposed
fruit fly payloads will be required to use either the NASA Fruit Fly Lab Ventilated Fly Box
(VFB) or the Fly Cassette & Food Changeout Platform system (FC Kit). Descriptions of
these pieces of hardware are provided below in Section 2.1.3 and in the supplemental
information provided with this solicitation. Nematode research will be limited to culturing
systems that can support nematodes with minimal to no tending. Descriptions of a
NASA-provided hardware option for a culturing system are provided below in Section
2.1.4 (Plate habitat or PHAB). Investigators may propose the use of other culture
systems for nematode research as long as they fit within the constraints listed in Section
2.1.2.
While proposers can choose any of the hardware described in this program element,
proposals shall be limited to only one type of hardware, due to mass and volume
constraints of the Artemis II Mission. Mixing and matching the different types of
hardware is not permitted, whether investigators propose to use one kind of the NASA-
provided hardware or elect to use a third-party culturing system for nematode research.
All proposed research must comply with the technical requirements defined in Section
2.1. Failure to comply with any requirements stated in this announcement may result in
the proposal being declined without review.
Proposals must include studies to be conducted during the Artemis II mission on the
Orion spacecraft, and may not include experiments on the ISS, or any other LEO
platform. Ground control experiments are expected and permitted.
Proposals must be for hypothesis-driven research investigations, and it is expected that
the data generated from these investigations will:
• Increase understanding of the biological responses and impacts of the deep
space environment on the physiological systems of an actively growing,
metabolically active, multicellular/multi-organ invertebrate organism that is a
model of human physiology and disease.
• Expand the scientific return by using the Genelab Data System and the Life
Science Data Archive for open science data access to the broader science
research community (Note: While the Life Science Data Archive is being
updated, users are still able to access existing information). Space Biology
encourages applicants to include opportunities for biospecimen sharing when
feasible; however, this is not a requirement.
• Advance NASA technical and operational experience and lessons learned for the
design and implementation of experiments using animal models for future
Artemis platforms.
Proposals submitted to this program element should also address relevant Space-
Biology recommendations contained within the report of the Decadal Survey on
Biological and Physical Sciences Space “Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration
Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era (2011)” and the Midterm
Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences
Research at NASA.

E.11-3
The Artemis II mission will provide sample return, which will allow detailed analyses to
be conducted in researchers’ labs for the discovery of biological mechanisms and
pathways implicated in physiological responses to the space environment.
The total budget for each proposed investigation shall not exceed $750,000, and the
total duration shall not exceed 3 years.
NOTE: It is Space Biology’s intention that the data generated from the experiments
flown on this mission will facilitate the development of models of biological responses to
the deep space environment, which is necessary for translation to human physiology in
deep space. Please refer to Section 4.2.2 below for specific instructions regarding the
proposal sections, and the elements and information that must be contained within an
application for this program element.
2.1 Technical Requirements/Specifics
2.1.1 Payload Specifications and Concepts of Operations
NASA currently anticipates selecting up to two flight proposals, each for a single
experiment (payload) that adheres to the requirements described in Section 2.1 of this
program element. Both payloads together will be loaded into a single Artemis Cargo
Bag (ACB), which is identical to a single (1.0) Cargo Transfer Bag (CTB) commonly
used in ISS experiments, after preparation and prior to turnover. Therefore, each
proposed Artemis II experiment should fit approximately within a 0.5 ACB equivalent or
less. The maximum total mass of the two selected payloads shall not exceed 7.510 kg.
To simplify the application process for the proposer, the maximum number of units for
each specific type of hardware described in this document that constitutes a 0.5 ACB
equivalent are provided in Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.4. Proposals involving multiple
Artemis II payloads, or Artemis II payloads that exceed the 0.5 ACB equivalent, may be
declared non-compliant and declined without review.
All Artemis II payloads shall not require power from the Orion spacecraft, nor shall they
require hard-mounting to the interior of the capsule. Crew will be available to assist in
rudimentary activities for the payload, such as opening and closing the ACB, or
changing out the fly food in the Fly Cassette (See Section 2.1.3.2 below), but total crew
time requested should not exceed a total of 60 minutes for the duration of the mission. It
is expected, however, that the crew will not be able to conduct any crew operations on
the payload within 4 hours of launch, and the time of operations will depend on the
crew’s sleep cycle.
NOTE: The volume and mass constraints described in this program element are based
on current Orion Integration Team estimates; however, they are subject to change
before the launch of the Artemis II Mission.
The Orion Vehicle Integration team has stated that launch (L)-17 days is the nominal
start time for payload turnover; however, the Space Biology Program will request a later
turnover time for its biological payloads, which is expected to be between L-48 and L-24
hours. A proposer may request a different turnover time but must provide a science
rationale in their proposal. Proposers should also provide a contingency turnover time
that is earlier than L-48 hours, if scientifically feasible. Turnover times later than L-24
hours may not be possible to accommodate due to vehicle constraints. Specimen

E.11-4
change-out is available if required in the case that the next launch attempt is
delayed/scrubbed by 48 hours or more from the time of the scheduled launch. The
scrub duration requirement and tolerance, as well as the scientific rationale for
specimen change out in such cases, shall be detailed in the proposal. For example, in
experiments containing live invertebrates, late turnover and delay/scrub replacement
may be required for correct aging of animals at launch or, in the case of Drosophila, to
reduce the population density by controlling the number of eggs laid on Earth. Such
constraints must be clearly identified and described in the proposal.
The Orion capsule will be air conditioned on the pad awaiting launch, but proposers
should indicate their controlled temperature requirements. The payloads will initially be
stowed in a closed panel locker during launch with no significant ventilation with the
cabin air. Capsule power, racks, and cold stowage are not provided and may not be
requested. It is anticipated that the ACB itself will not have a free range of orientations
in the stowage locker, but that the ACB foam insert will be able to accommodate
directional requirements of specific hardware pieces during launch and landing. VFBs
and FC will be oriented so that the launch g-force is directed down into the food
trays/supplies to prevent the dislodging or unintended movement of the food. The
mission integration and operations (MI&O) team will ensure orientation requirements
listed in proposals utilizing PHAB are appropriately accommodated.
The ACB will be removed from the stowage locker approximately 24 hours after launch,
and then stowed in a location that allows for unobstructed access to cabin air. During
the Artemis II mission, capsule environmental operations data will be collected from
vehicle sensors and provided to the PI (as available) after the mission. These data will
include vibration, radiation, acceleration, temperature, humidity, acoustics, and cabin
atmospheric conditions. Note that sensors may not be in the immediate vicinity of the
payload hardware.
Prior to re-entry, the ACB will be restowed in the locker as late as possible. Proposers
must provide a window of time when the payload can be stowed for splashdown. The
time for the recovery ship to get to the capsule is dependent on the splashdown location
and condition of the seas. After splashdown and crew recovery, the power to Orion will
be turned off, and the capsule will be towed to the recovery ship. The temperature in
Orion could exceed 100oF during the day. Once in the recovery well of the ship,
payloads will be removed, and placed in a temperature-controlled room.
Due to the temperature sensitive nature of biological specimens, NASA will request
removal of the science payloads at the same time as crew recovery. Such requests may
not be honored; therefore, proposals should address experimental sensitivity to thermal
variation post landing and impacts to science return. If the request is honored, the
payloads will be delivered to the recovery ship by helicopter with the crew and then
transferred to a temperature-controlled room. The number of hours or days to get to
Navy port in San Diego is determined by the sea conditions. The payloads will be turned
over to the NASA payload developer team at the port. Access to the port will be
restricted to NASA payload representatives only. Sample processing on the recovery
ship and at the naval port will not be allowed. Payload and PI teams will not be allowed
on the recovery ship when at sea. The destination of the payloads after turnover is
dependent on PI requirements.

E.11-5
NOTE: Use of glove bags and glove boxes will not be available for in-flight operations.
2.1.2 General Hardware Constraints (Not Payload-Specific)
2.1.2.1 Artemis Cargo Bag:
Description: The Artemis Cargo Bag (ACB) is equivalent to a Cargo Transfer Bag
(CTB), which is used during ISS missions, and serves as a container to store and
transport payloads and hardware. A 1.0 or “single” ACB equivalent is the total limit of
volume and mass allotted for Space Biology experimental payloads at this time;
therefore, the Space Biology Program is constraining a proposed payload to a
maximum of ~0.5 ACB.
The payload specifications for one Artemis Cargo Bag (entire bag) are:
• Up-/Down Mass (Maximum): 12.56 kg
o Up/Down-Mass of required structural components: 5.05 kg (includes foam insert,
which positions payloads in the bag and contains channels the promote air
exchange)
o Up/Down Mass for combined payloads (maximum): 7.510 kg (total – each
proposed payload should be approximately half this total)
• ACB Volume: 50,173 cm3 (total)
• ACB External Dimensions: 50.2 cm x 42.5 cm x 23.5 cm
• Additional Artemis II crew support: Opening and closing the ACB in flight to promote
air exchange with the cabin (10 minutes)
• Location requirement: May be stowed in a location that provides unrestricted cabin
air exposure after the ACB is removed from the stowage locker post-launch, if
needed. It is anticipated that the ACB itself will not have a free range of orientations
in the stowage locker. The ACB is returned to the locker for splashdown.
2.1.2.2 Data Loggers:
Radiation Area Monitor (RAM) (in a Type 1 container)
• Up/Down-Mass: 0.18 kg
HOBO temperature/relative humidity logger
• Up/Down-Mass: 0.03 kg
ibutton temperature/relative humidity logger
• Up/Down-Mass: 0.003 kg
2.1.3 NASA Hardware available for Drosophila Experiments
2.1.3.1 Ventilated Fly Box:
Three Ventilated Fly Box (VFB) units occupy a 0.5 ACB equivalent. Proposals for
projects using this hardware cannot exceed three units, nor can they propose to use
any other pieces of hardware.
Description: This passive aluminum container holds fifteen commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS) mini “shorty” or “short style” fly vials; each vial contains food and samples (e.g.,
males and female flies, eggs, and/or developing larvae) and carries two iButton
temperature/humidity data recorders. The VFB has air vents at the top and sides that
allow air exchange with cabin air through the COTS air-permeable nitrocellulose fly vial

E.11-6
plugs. Use of these, however, requires that the outer cover of the ACB bag be opened
in flight while the ACB inner mesh covering allows for exposure to cabin air.
The payload specifications of the VFB are:
• Up/Down-Mass: 0.92 – 0.99kg/VFB; total ~ 2.77 – 2.90 kg/3 VFBs (final mass depends
on volume of food added)
• Dimensions: 15 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm
• Volume: 1500 cm3/VFB
• Payload Quantity: 3 VFBs and their associated ACB foam insert will occupy ~0.5 ACB
• Crew Time: Total of 10 minutes (5 minutes to open the cover [access to cabin air]
and 5 minutes to close the cover for return).
2.1.3.2 Fly Cassette Kit:
A single Fly Cassette kit (FC Kit) contains: one empty FC, one FC with flies and filled
food tray, and one platform with filled food tray. Four FC Kits/units will occupy a 0.5
ACB equivalent, with the possibility of adding a fifth FC kit depending on the mass and
volume of the other payload to be flown. Investigators who plan to propose the use of
five FC kits are advised to include alternative approaches that they will undertake if only
four FC kits are available. Proposals for projects utilizing this hardware cannot exceed
five FC Kits, nor can they propose to use any other pieces of hardware.
Description: This hardware allows for multigenerational growth by allowing for a food
changeout during the flight, using the accessory changeout platforms. The hardware
has mesh covered air holes on both sides of a cassette which then slides into a Type 1
Container that also has air holes on both sides and allows air exchange with the cabin
air. Air exchange is facilitated when the outer cover of the ACB bag is left open, and the
ACB inner mesh cover allows for cabin air exposure. All these Fruit Fly Container
components are placed within a foam insert designed to promote air exchange. Within
3-4 days after launch and using the Change-out Platform, the egg-carrying food tray is
swapped for a fresh food-filled tray so the adult flies may continue laying eggs in fresh
food. The egg-carrying food tray is inserted into the empty FC where the eggs and
larvae are allowed to continue development into the next generation of adults,
segregated from the parental generation. Using the platform maintains full containment
of the flies and larvae in the FCs. This containment was proven by testing food tray
change-out without the use of a glove bag, per Shuttle Safety Review Panel approval.
More information on the Fly Cassette Hardware can be found in the supplemental
hardware information provided with this solicitation, and at:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fruit_fly-iss-mini-book-tagged.pdf.
Each FC Kit includes 1) FC with food-filled tray, male and female flies; 2) FC with empty
food tray; 3) Food Tray Change-Out Platform with a food-filled tray. Each FC is housed
in a separate Type 1 Container. One Passive Radiation Monitor in a Type 1 Container
and one HOBO Temperature/Humidity data logger are included.
The payload specifications of the FC are:
• Up/Down-Mass: 0.87 kg/FC Kit (4 FC kits = 3.48 kg + 0.2 kg (for RAM and HOBO) =
3.68 kg)
• Volume/Dimensions: Type 1 container (housing a Cassette or RAM) = 169.7 cm 3;

E.11-7
• Volume/Dimensions: Food Tray Change Out Platform = 504 cm3
• Crew Time: 5-10 minutes per food tray change out; total time = 25 to 50 minutes
2.1.4 Hardware requirements for Nematode Experiments:
Nematode research will be limited to culture hardware that can accommodate small
animals without requiring power from the Orion platform. Plates or cells carrying such
specimens must be housed within an apparatus that provides containment. One
hardware option that is available to proposers is the Plate Habitat (PHAB)
https://www.colorado.edu/center/bioserve/spaceflight-hardware/biocellphab. Up to three
PHABs will occupy a 0.5 ACB equivalent. Proposals for projects utilizing this hardware
cannot exceed the use of three PHAB units nor exceed a 0.5 ACB volume, including the
foam insert for packing.
PHAB Description: The PHAB is designed specifically to provide gas exchange while
providing one level of containment. The PHAB is a sealed volume that can be charged
with a specific atmosphere composition (e.g., 5% CO2/balance air), if required, and
provide a barrier for internal components or samples. The PHAB lid is sealed via a
latching mechanism which allows for access to internal samples or components, if
needed. The internal configuration of the PHAB is customizable based upon science
requirements. The PHAB can hold BioServe’s BioCell culture plates that come in single
well (20ml per well), 4-well (4.3 mL/per well) and 12-well (2.2 mL/per well)
configurations. (Note: the 6-well configuration displayed on the BioServe website, is
unavailable for this opportunity). The BioCells provide gas exchange to the wells from
the internal PHAB environment via gas permeable membranes while providing one level
of containment. Between four (4) and six (6) BioCells can be held within one PHAB. The
total number of BioCells that can be held is dependent on which BioCells are used (the
4-well for example, is thicker than the 12-well), and the cultures that are inside.
Alternatively, a PHAB can hold up to twelve (12) customizable (size) gas permeable
culture bags, or it can hold small tubes or other containers. The number it can hold is
dependent upon the size of the container or tubes. Each PHAB can also contain one
HOBO data logger for temperature only or temperature and humidity.
Photos of PHAB can be found within supplemental hardware information provided with
this solicitation and at https://www.colorado.edu/center/bioserve/spaceflight-
hardware/biocellphab.
The payload specifications for the PHAB are:
• Dry weight with HOBO: 0.600 kg –- 0.635 kg/PHAB
• Up/Down-Mass: Variable – dependent upon internal configuration - ~0.822 kg – 1.2
kg/PHAB (3 PHABs = 2.47 kg – 3.60 kg)
• Outer Dimensions: 14.65 cm (L) x 11.83 cm (H) x 13.03 cm (W)
• Internal Dimension: 14.0 cm (L) x 10 cm (H) x 10 cm (W)
• Volume: 2,258.22 cm3/PHAB;
• Crew Time: 10-45 minutes depending upon operations needed.
Any questions regarding the use of PHAB for this opportunity should be send to
spacebiology@nasaprs.com, and not directly to BioServe.

E.11-8
If proposers choose to not use PHAB, but an alternative culturing system, that system
must be housed in a unit that provides containment and is no larger than an 0.5 ACB
equivalent.
3. Proposal Submission
This program element use the general submission requirements as described in Section
IV(b) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Proposals submitted after the due
dates given in Tables 2 and 3 of the ROSES Solicitation will be considered late and may
be declined without review (see SMD’s policy on late proposals).
This program element will use a binding two-step process described in Section IV(b)vii
of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and will follow the general submission
requirements as described in Section IV(b) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation. The Step-1 proposal is a required prerequisite for submission of a full Step-
2 proposal. Only proposers who submit a Step-1 proposal and are invited to submit a
Step-2 proposal are eligible to submit a Step-2 proposal. Refer to Sections 4.1 and 6.1
for more information on this topic.
Every organization that intends to submit a proposal to NASA in response to this
ROSES Program Element must be registered in the NASA Solicitation and Proposal
Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES), regardless of the electronic
system used to submit proposals. Proposers from new organizations that have not
applied for NASA grants or contracts are recommended to begin their organization
registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) as soon as possible, This is a
prerequisite to registering the organization in NSPIRES. Proposers must then complete
organization registration and proposer affiliation in NSPIRES. The SAM web site is
https://www.sam.gov. All team members known at the time of Step-2 proposal
submission (and any persons identified in the proposal as having significant roles, paid
or unpaid, in the project) must be registered in NSPIRES and confirm their
organizational affiliation when added to a proposal before the PI organization official can
submit. Proposal submission questions received will be answered and published in a
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document. This FAQ will be posted on the
NSPIRES page for this program element and will be updated periodically between
solicitation release and the Step-2 proposal due date. Any supplemental information will
also be posted on this page. It is the responsibility of the submitter to access NSPIRES
to check on these updates.
4. Proposal Content
This call for proposals is part of NASA SMD's ROSES solicitation. All proposers are
encouraged to read the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, to learn the default
guidelines. However, in the cases of any conflicts, this program element takes
precedence, followed by the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, and then the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. Statutes and regulations always apply and take precedence
over any solicitation or guidance. In general, this program element is designed to be
self-contained. However, if further guidance is required, the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation, and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers are available resources.

E.11-9
4.1 Step-1 Proposal
Proposers may use either NSPIRES (https://nspires.nasaprs.com) or Grants.gov
(https://grants.gov) for Step-1 proposal submission. Grants.gov will not be available for
invited Step-2 submissions. Step-1 proposal submission and invitation is required to
submit a Step-2 proposal. Regardless of the electronic submission system used for
Step-1 proposals, all proposers, team members, organization officials, and the
submitting organization must be registered with NSPIRES before proposal submission.
All Step-1 proposals must include the appropriate required electronic forms available
through either of the two proposal submission systems, NSPIRES or Grants.gov. In
general, each proposal shall include a Proposal Cover Page and a PDF document
consisting of the required elements listed below.
The Step-1 Proposal Document must contain the following components:
a. A clear indication of the relevance to the Research Scope as described in
Section 2 of this program element.
b. The scientific objectives and specific aims of the proposal.
c. A clear identification of the organism and hardware selected for the project, as
well as the number of pieces of that hardware that will be used for the proposed
study.
d. A contingency plan that briefly describes how the proposed study would be
modified if reductions in volume, mass, and crew time allotments for Space
Biology payloads prior to launch were to occur.
The length of the Step-1 Proposal Document is not to exceed 3 pages. Budget should
not be included with the Step-1 proposal. Instructions for completing the Proposal Cover
Page in NSPIRES and Grants.gov are available in Sections IV(b)iv and IV(b)v,
respectively, of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Proposers intending to use
Grants.gov should contact Dr. Guillaume Vignaux (gvignaux@nasaprs.com) Senior
Support Scientist, NASA Research and Education Support Services, to ensure that the
Grants.gov system is available for proposal submission. Proposal submissions that do
not include the required Proposal Cover Page Elements may be deemed non-compliant
and declined without review. Team members known at the time of submission should be
included in the proposal team in NSPIRES. Team members may be changed before
Step-2 submission if invited.
Step-1 proposals must be submitted by an Authorized Organizational Representative
(AOR) and are due by the date to be given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022.
4.2 Step-2 Proposal
Step-2 proposals will only be accepted from Step-1 proposers that have been invited to
submit Step-2 proposals. A courtesy email will be generated by NSPIRES as a reminder
to check full proposal invitation status; however, it is the responsibility of the submitter to
log in to NSPIRES to receive their full proposal invitation status.
Step-2 proposals must be submitted via NSPIRES (https://nspires.nasaprs.com). The
NSPIRES system will guide proposers through submission of all required proposal
information. Select “prior-phase proposal” when creating a Step-2 proposal. This will
automatically transfer some of the proposal information from the Step-1 proposal to the

E.11-10
Step-2 proposal. Proposal team members carried over from a Step-1 proposal may
need to login and re-confirm their affiliation and participation on the proposal. Team
members may be changed between Step-1 and Step-2 proposals.
The Step-2 proposals consist of electronic forms (i.e., the NSPIRES cover page; see
Section 4.2.1 below) and two attachments: Proposal Document (see Section 4.2.2
below) and Total Budget (see Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation), and Section 5 of this program element).
Step-2 proposals are due by the date given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022.
4.2.1 Proposal Cover Page
Proposers must fill out the NSPIRES Proposal Cover Pages, as described in Section
IV(b)iv of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and section 2.8 of the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. For additional information about the contents of the cover
page refer to Table 1 of the ROSES-2022.
All named participants (which includes all individuals mentioned by name in the
proposal regardless of whether they will received funding or not) must register
themselves in NSPIRES, be assigned one of the roles defined in Appendix B of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers, and confirm their participation. Failure to do so may
result in a proposal's decline without review. Unnamed participants (e.g., “2
undergraduate assistants”) need not complete this step.
The organization specified on the cover page for a team member must be the
organization through which the team member would work and receive funding while
participating in the proposed effort. If the individual has multiple affiliations, only one
organization may be designated to receive funding. If a team member has affiliations
with both U.S. and non-U.S. organizations, and chooses to receive funding through a
U.S. affiliation, they may not also receive funding from a non-U.S. space agency
through their non-U.S affiliation for the same work, or vice versa. Team members are
asked to ensure that their contact information in NSPIRES is up to date. Changes can
be made using the "Account Management" link on the "NSPIRES Options" page.
4.2.2 Proposal Document
All proposals must include a Proposal Document consisting of the Scientific/Technical
Section (a.k.a. Project Description) and all other required elements described herein.
The Proposal Document must include the sections listed in Table E.11-A below, in the
order listed, as one searchable, unlocked PDF file.
If any required sections are missing from the Proposal Document, the proposal may be
declared non-compliant and declined without review. No additional sections/appendices
beyond what is specified in Table E.11-A are allowed, with the following exception: a
Title Page that states the name of the proposal and the proposing organization may be
included in the proposal. The Title Page may include project or organization logos but
shall not include additional proposal information such as abstracts. The page may also
be used to provide statements regarding export control.

E.11-11
With the exception of the Summary Chart described immediately below in Table E.11-A
and the title page, all elements within the Proposal Attachment must adhere to the
following formatting requirements:
• Page size is 8.5x11 inches.
• Pages shall have at least 1-inch (2.5 cm) margins on all sides.
• Proposals shall be single-spaced, in 12-point font (fonts cannot exceed 15
characters per horizontal inch), English-language text, and formatted using one
column.
• Figure captions may be in 10-point font.
• The font size for symbols in equations shall be consistent with this guideline.
• Proposers may not adjust or otherwise condense a font or line from its default
appearance.
• Any other formatting requirements described in Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation.
Proposals that exceed page limits, contain extra sections that are not specifically
requested or allowed by this program element, or violate the formatting rules described
immediately above, may have excess text and/or sections redacted, or may be declared
noncompliant and returned without review.
Complete information about many of the section requirements listed in Table E.11-A
below can be found in the provided links and references. Additional instructions only for
sections that have requirements that differ from those described in the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation or the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, are given in the list
below Table E.11-A.
Table E.11-A: Required Elements for Proposal Document
Proposal Section Title Page Limit Reference for More
Section # Information
1 Table of Contents 1 Table 1 of ROSES-2022
2 Summary Chart 1 Section 4.2.2.1 of this
document
3 Response to Prior Review 2 Section 4.2.2.2 of this
(if applicable) document
4 Scientific/Technical 12 Section 4.2.2.3 of this
Section (a.k.a. Project document
Description)
5 Schedule 1 Section 4.2.2.4 of this
document
6 Management Approach No page limit Section 4.2.2.5 of this
(Includes Table of document
Personnel and Work
Effort)
7 Statistical Approach 1 Section 4.2.2.6 of this
document
8 References No page limit Table 1 of ROSES-2022
9 Data Management Plan 2 Section 4.2.2.7 of this

E.11-12
 document
10 Biographical Sketches/ 2 for PI, Table 1 of ROSES-2022
Curriculum Vitae (CVs) 1 for all
others
11 Facilities and Equipment No page limit Table 1 of ROSES-2022
12 Budget with Budget No page limit Section IV(b)(iii) of the
Narrative and Budget ROSES-2022 Summary of
Details Solicitation
Section 4.2.2.8 of this
document
Current and Pending No page limit Table 1 of ROSES-2022
13
Support
Letters of Support, No page limit Table 1 and Section III(b) of
including Letters of the ROSES-2022 Summary
14 Certification from a of Solicitation
Foreign Agency (if
applicable).
Spaceflight Experiment No page limit Section 4.2.2.9 of this
15
Requirements Form document
Please note that the descriptions immediately below only cover sections of a proposal
that have requirements that differ from those described in the ROSES-2022 Summary
of Solicitation and/or the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Proposers must ensure that
their Proposal Document contains ALL the sections listed above in Table E.11-A.
4.2.2.1 Summary Chart
A single-page Summary Chart must be included in the Step-2 proposal PDF to
summarize the main points of the proposal. The chart will be used to represent the
proposal during the review process. The chart is intended to provide a quick sense of
the proposed effort and should stand alone (i.e., not require the full proposal to be
understood). It must not include any proprietary or export-controlled data, as NASA may
make the Summary Charts of selected proposals available to the public after selections
are announced. Proposal submission, in accordance with this requirement, will indicate
the proposer’s consent to public release of the Summary Chart. The Summary Chart
should be included in landscape format, should occupy the entire page (except for
margins), and shall not exceed one page. A template of a suitable Summary Chart is
available on the NSPIRES webpage for this program element under Other Documents.
4.2.2.2 Response to Prior Review (if applicable)
Investigators submitting a proposal in response to this program element, and whose
submission within the last three years to any NASA life sciences (limited to Space
Biology, Human Research Program [HRP], National Space Biomedical Research
Institute [NSBRI], and Translational Research Institute for Space Health [TRISH])
sponsored research announcement was not accepted and included similar specific
aims, are required to submit an explanation of how the current proposal addresses
criticisms from previous review cycles. When provided, this explanation shall be
presented preceding the research description as part of the main proposal attachment

E.11-13
and will be limited to two pages. This explanation should include changes made to the
current proposal as a result of review comments and/or an explanation of why previous
review comments are not applicable to the current proposal.
This section is limited to two pages and is not considered to be part of the page-limited
Scientific/Technical Section (a.k.a. Project Description). If NASA deems that a current
proposal is a resubmission of a previous proposal, then proposal reviewers will be
provided with the evaluations of the original submission as part of the merit review to
assist them in the case that they determine it is relevant. Proposers who have questions
concerning their response to a previous review are encouraged to contact Dr. Guillaume
Vignaux at NASA Research and Education Support Services, at
gvignaux@nasaprs.com.
Note: Investigators resubmitting a proposal in response to this program element may
submit a life-science proposal with similar hypothesis(es) and aims a total of three times
(original submission plus two resubmissions). Significant changes must be made to the
proposal hypothesis(es) and specific aims for consideration after the third attempt or the
proposal will be declined without further review.
4.2.2.3 Scientific/Technical Section (a.k.a. Project Description)
The length of the project description of the proposal shall not exceed twelve pages and
shall contain the following key informational elements:
1) The scientific objectives of the proposed Artemis II experiments.
2) Scientific rationale and justification of how the Artemis II mission and deep space
conditions are uniquely required for the proposed payload. Investigators should
not propose to test hypotheses or ask scientific questions that could be addressed
equivalently by conducting the proposed study on platforms in LEO, including the
ISS, or ONLY in ground-based facilities (ground control experiments are expected
and permitted).
3) A detailed description of the experimental design that will achieve these objectives,
including scientific rationale and justification for how the selected hardware
satisfies all the technical needs of the experimental design.
4) Descriptions of any pre-flight or post-flight ground studies to be carried out by the
proposers under the support of this funding opportunity, as well as a description
and scientific justification for these ground studies proposed, including an
explanation of how these ground studies will help prepare for, and/or complement,
the flight experiment.
5) A contingency plan that describes how the experiment would be modified if the
total mass, volume, and or crew time allotments for the proposed payload were to
be decreased. For example, could a project proposing the use of 3 VFBs be
successfully scaled down if only one VFB was available? If yes, what would this
do to science return, which specimens would need to be removed from the
experiment, how would the loss of sample size impact interpretation of the data,
etc.?
This section shall contain enough detail to enable reviewers to make informed
judgments about the overall merit of the proposed research and about the probability

E.11-14
that the investigators will be able to accomplish their stated objectives with current
resources and the resources requested.
The hypotheses and specific aims of the proposed research shall be clearly stated. The
proposed research plan and science objectives from all participants, including any
international team members, must be included in the submitted proposal. The main
body of the proposal shall be a detailed statement of the work to be undertaken and
should include objectives and expected significance; relation to the present state of
knowledge; and relation to previous work done on the project and to related work in
progress elsewhere. The statement should outline the plan of work, including the broad
design of experiments to be undertaken and a description of experimental methods and
procedures. The project description should also address the evaluation factors in these
instructions and any specific factors in this program element.
NOTE: Proposed studies that include experiments on the ISS, or any other LEO
platform will not be accepted.
4.2.2.4 Schedule
Each submission must include a top-level schedule that outlines the timeline (by month
or quarter of the year for each year of the award) for completion of the proposed specific
aims, as well as any proposed sub-aims. The schedule must be presented as a table or
as a simple, but accurately labeled, figure and may be in landscape orientation.
Regardless of the format chosen, the presented schedule cannot include narrative text
and shall not exceed one page in length.
4.2.2.5 Management Approach
The Management Approach section shall contain the management structure for the
proposal personnel; any substantial collaboration(s); any proposed use of consultant(s);
and a description of the expected contribution to the proposed effort, by task and sub-
task, by the PI and each team member, regardless of whether or not they derive support
from the proposed budget. This section must include the Table of Personnel and Work
Effort as described in Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, that
simply lists all of the planned work commitment, by person or role without any technical
details.
4.2.2.6 Statistical Approach
A statistical section with proper justification must be included. If a statistical section is
not applicable, a brief statement saying why it should not be included. The statistical
approach section of the proposal is limited to one page. If additional statistical analysis
material is included in the project description, it must be referenced in this section.
4.2.2.7 Data Management Plan
Requirements of the Data Management Plan (DMP) are described in Section II(c) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and in Section 1.1 of E.1 The Biological and
Physical Sciences Research Overview. The DMP must describe how data generated
through the course of the proposed research will be shared and preserved, including the
timeframe. All award recipients are required to (1) upload all relevant data and
associated metadata to the NASA GeneLab Data Systems (GLDS;

E.11-15
https://genelab.nasa.gov) see Section 9.2, (2) make all analytical models, tools, and
software produced under the funded research, as well as related documentation,
available to NASA as well as data produced from the funded research, and (3) upload
as-accepted manuscript versions of peer-reviewed publications that result from awards
into NASA PubSpace. Only DMPs that incorporate these requirements are acceptable
for proposals submitted in response to this program element. This section will be limited
to two pages.
4.2.2.8 Budget with Budget Narrative and Budget Details
As described in Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, the costs
of salary, fringe, or overhead should not be included anywhere in the Proposal
Attachment which will be seen by peer reviewers, which includes in the Proposal
Budget with Budget Narrative and Budget Details element. Instead, this information
must be provided on the NSPIRES web page budget and in a separately uploaded
"Total Budget" PDF file (refer to Section 5 for more details). Proposers are strongly
encouraged to consult the Salaries, Overhead, and ROSES Proposal Budgets
walkthrough at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-
CSlabor, for more information.
Hardware to be used on the Orion flight (with the exception of culturing systems not
described in this program element) as well as mission operations and integration
(MI&O) will be provided and managed by a NASA payload integration team, and
therefore does not need to be accounted for in the proposal budget (nor the Total
Budget PDF). Travel to and from the launch site (the NASA Kennedy Space Center),
however, should be accounted for in the budget. Furthermore, if an investigator elects
not to use PHAB, but an alternative culturing system for a nematode payload, then the
acquisition and use of this hardware must be accounted for in the proposal budget.
Note: For the budget justification in the main Proposal Attachment PDF, proposers may
refer to the time, but not costs, for a subaward that involves salary, fringe or overhead,
e.g., “1.5 months/year are allocated for Co-I Dr. Claire Finn, as can be seen in the Table
of Personnel and Work Effort. Dr. Finn will be funded via a subaward to the Saturnian
School of Medical Sciences. The total cost for that subaward is given in the NSPIRES
cover page budget in Section F line 5 and is included in the separately uploaded Total
Budget PDF file but is not included here in the proposal.”
4.2.2.9 Space Flight Experiment Requirements Form
All proposers to this program element must complete the Space Flight Experiment
Requirements Form. This form can be found on the NSPIRES page for this program
element. Once completed, proposers must attach this form as part of the Proposal
Document PDF.
5. Total Budget PDF
When submitting the Step-2 proposal, proposers must upload a separate Total Budget
PDF as an additional attachment that is separate from the Proposal Attachment PDF.
Refer to Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and Section IV(b)(iii) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation, and the Salaries, Overhead, and ROSES Proposal Budgets walkthrough at
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor

E.11-16
Note: The Total Budget PDF is required and failure to provide it may result in proposal
being declared non-compliant and returned without review.
6. Review and Selection Process
6.1 Step-1 Relevancy and Compatibility Review
Each Step-1 proposal will be evaluated by NASA to determine whether the proposal is
relevant to the topics solicited by the program element. To be relevant, the proposal
must be responsive to the research scope of this program element as described in
Section 2 and be compatible with the hardware limitations, organism requirements, and
project types described. During this review, Step-1 proposals will also be evaluated for
their compatibility with any updated payload mass, volume, and crew time allotments of
the Artemis II mission. Those proposers whose proposals are both relevant and
compatible with updated resource allotments/constraints will be invited to submit full
Step-2 proposals. Proposers who are invited to submit a Step-2 proposal are not
obligated to submit a final proposal.
6.2 Step-2 Proposal Compliance Review
NASA will conduct an administrative review of all Step-2 proposals to prescreen them
for compliance with the requirements of this program element. Proposals that are non-
compliant in any way with the requirements listed in this program element, including
exceeding page limits for a given section or that include sections not listed in Table
E.11-A, or with requirements described in Section 4.1 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers and Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, may have
excess sections or text redacted, or may be declined without further review.
The Step-2 proposal compliance review’s elements include but are not limited to:
a. Submission of a complete proposal with all required elements (refer to Section
4.2 of this program element).
b. Submission of a proposal that is consistent with the page/format limitations (refer
to Section 4.2 of this program element).
c. Submission of a proposal that involves an appropriate organism and uses the
appropriate hardware as specified in Section 2 of this program element.
d. Submission of a proposal from an eligible applicant (refer to section III of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation).
e. Submission of a proposal that clarifies that the participation of any individual
associated with a foreign institution is on a no-exchange of funds basis with a letter
from their supporting organization (refer to Table 1 and Section III(b) of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation).
f. Submission of a proposal that is within the budgets indicated in this program
element.
6.3 Step-2 Proposal Review and Evaluation Criteria
Compliant Step-2 proposals will be evaluated for Intrinsic (Science) Merit, Cost, and
Relevance consistent with Section V(a) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.

E.11-17
 6.3.1 Intrinsic Merit Review of Proposals
Assessment of merit will include the suitability of the proposal based on the factors
below (which are derived from those defined in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers).
• The scientific quality of the proposed project, including, but not limited to, the
scientific rationale and the expected significance and/or impact of the proposed
work.
• The overall technical quality of the proposed work, including, but not limited to,
the quality of the management plan and project timeline for carrying out the work
and the effectiveness and resilience of the proposed experimental designs.
methods, techniques, and approaches for achieving the proposed goals and/or
objectives.
• Whether the proposed experiments meet the flight requirements described in this
program element and whether the hypothesis(es) to be tested or scientific
question(s) that is (are) asked, require(s) use of the Artemis flight and cannot be
addressed by performing these experiments on LEO (including ISS) or ground-
based platforms.
• Whether an adequate and/or reasonable contingency plan was provided if mass,
volume, and crew time allotments are reduced before the final launch date.
• Whether the range of sample sizes for the proposed study are reasonable and
properly justified; whether the investigator has assumed reasonable effect
magnitudes and variability estimates. Whether the statistics adequately account
for type I and type II errors. The thoroughness and adequacy of the data analysis
plan, and the appropriateness to the sampling and other constraints associated
with the type of research that is being proposed.
• The qualifications, capabilities, and related expertise of personnel demonstrated
by the proposal (e.g., publications, delivered products, and other measures of
productivity and/or expertise) that will affect the likelihood of achieving the
objectives. For investigators in the early stages of their independent careers, the
reviewers will assess if they have appropriate expertise and training. For mid to
late career investigators, reviewers will assess if they have been productive in
their careers in terms of publications and results.
• Facilities, instruments, equipment, and other resources or support systems
presented in the proposal that will affect the likelihood of achieving the proposed
objectives.
• The quality of the data management plan.
A panel of scientific subject matter experts will evaluate the intrinsic (science) merit of
the proposals. This panel of experts may include non-NASA and other non-Government
personnel. The number and diversity of expertise required will be determined by the
response to this program element.
6.3.2 Internal NASA Step-2 Proposal assessment of Cost and Relevance and
Programmatic Alignment/Balance
Step-2 proposals receiving a favorable science merit score may be reviewed by NASA
for Cost and Relevance. This review will include the programmatic alignment/balance
and cost of proposals that are scientifically meritorious and technically feasible to
implement. This review will be conducted by NASA program scientists and managers.

E.11-18
Evaluation of the cost of a proposed effort includes consideration of the reasonableness
of the proposed cost and the relationship of the proposed cost to available funds.
Programmatic Alignment is determined by the contribution of the proposed work to the
balance of scientific and technical issues identified by the program. Space Biology will
also determine programmatic relevance by evaluating how a proposal will answer
scientific gaps outlined by the National Research Council "Decadal Survey"
(Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration Life and Physical Sciences Research for a
New Era (2011)), the “Decadal Midterm Assessment” (A Midterm Assessment of
Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences Research at
NASA). Programmatic relevance/balance will include an evaluation of how the proposed
work may help achieve an appropriate balance of scientific and technical tasks required
by NASA.
6.3.3 Internal Technical Feasibility (Implementation) Review of Step-2 Proposals
Step-2 Proposals receiving a favorable science merit score may be given an additional
review by NASA that will consist of an evaluation of the feasibility of the proposed work
using available facilities on a space platform. A team of engineers and scientists
experienced in the development, integration and operation of spaceflight experiments
will conduct this review. This evaluation will include an assessment of whether the
proposed payload fits with the technical constraints described in Section 2.1 of this
program element, including volume and mass limitations, crew-time requirements, as
well compatibility of the payload with any updated mission constraints. Investigations
should make sure that experimental requirements and procedures are clearly and
succinctly explained.
Principal Investigators will not be provided the risk assessment score, but in cases
where the decision not to select a proposal is based in part on the technical evaluation,
a description of the identified risk factors will be provided upon request.
7. Selection and Award
Selection procedures will be consistent with the procedures identified in Section V(b) of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers. The Selection Official for this program element will be the Director of the
Biological and Physical Sciences Division, Science Mission Directorate, or designee, at
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
7.1 Award Information
All awards from this program element to non-governmental organizations will be in the
form of grants or cooperative agreements. NASA will determine the most appropriate
award vehicle. For cooperative agreements, NASA's contributions are to assist in the
turnover of the investigation to the Artemis II, and mission integration and operations, to
work between the hardware provider and the launch provider to fully integrate the
investigation from launch to Artemis II operations, and return.
It is anticipated that up to two awards will be made, each with a maximum funding level
of $750,000, over three years maximum. Selected proposals are expected to be funded
in one-year increments. The final funding duration will depend on proposal

E.11-19
requirements, peer review panel recommendations, and continuing progress of the
activity.
Awards are contingent on the progress of mission planning and the ability of the Artemis
II mission to accommodate Space Biology payloads. NASA may support projects as
they were proposed, or may offer to fund only selected parts, or all or part of what was
proposed for a shorter duration, or a combination of duration and content. Space
Biology reserves the right to 1) modify a selected project if necessary to fit possible
reductions to mass, volume and crew time allotments made prior to launch, 2) to
deselect a project if it is found to be incompatible with Artemis II allotments or
constraints as they are updated prior to launch, or 3) to select no projects from this
opportunity if none are found to be compatible with updated Artemis II allotments or
constraints. Space Biology also reserves the right to organize selected projects into
teams to maximize the government’s return on investment and address programmatic
priorities, which may or may not entail changes to existing organizational structures in
selected proposals. The program, for example, may elect to partially fund proposed
studies to perform only post-flight analyses of specimens from the Artemis II mission,
which will require investigators and proposal team members funded under these
conditions to work with investigators whose project(s) were selected as flight payloads.
Awards may depend on acceptable revised budgets, statements of work, data
management plans, or other elements of proposals described in ROSES or in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. NASA reserves the right to share data between selected
projects in order to maximize the government’s return on investment and address
programmatic priorities.
8. Post Award Considerations
8.1 Required Travel
In addition to travel to and from the launch site, proposals for projects with a duration of
two or more years must include travel costs for the PI to participate in the American
Society for Gravitational and Space Research (ASGSR) annual meetings starting on the
second year of the project period. The PIs are required to attend the meetings to report
on the progress of the project through a poster or an oral presentation. ASGSR
meetings are typically held domestically in October or November. Proposers may use
past ASGSR venues as examples for budgeting purposes: Baltimore, MD, (2021),
Denver, CO (2019), Washington, DC (2018), Seattle, WA (2017), Cleveland, OH (2016).
9. Space Biology Research Resources
9.1 Current Research Portfolios for the NASA Space Biology Program
Investigators are encouraged to review summaries of currently funded NASA Space
Biology Program projects by accessing the NASA Task Book at
https://taskbook.nasaprs.com.
9.2. GeneLab Database
Space Biology has established and funded a public repository for omics data named
GeneLab. Please visit https://genelab.nasa.gov for more information. All projects that

E.11-20
yield omics data must deposit it in GeneLab no later than a year after their final report.
This is a requirement for the DMP of such proposals.
9.3 Research Data and Sample Repositories
The Life Sciences Data Archive (LSDA) (https://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov) is a publicly
accessible archive of data from NASA-funded spaceflight, flight-analog studies, and
ground-based life sciences research experiments (NOTE: While the Life Science Data
Archive is being updated, users are still able to access existing information). This
searchable database includes human (astronaut and ground test subject), animal, and
plant studies conducted from 1958 to the present and contains over 2,200 experiment
descriptions. Space Biology grant awardees may be contacted by a representative of
the LSDA with instructions for archiving their data. The archiving of the data is a
requirement of the grant award.
The Ames Life Sciences Data Archive is the official repository for non-human data
generated by NASA's Space Biology Program.
The NASA Space Biology Biospecimen Sharing Program collects non-human
biospecimens and coordinates dissections to maximize the scientific return of high-
quality tissues from spaceflight and ground biological investigations. NASA Biological
Institutional Scientific Collection (NBISC) is a biorepository of non-human samples from
NASA-funded spaceflight investigations and correlative ground studies. The primary
purpose of the NBISC is to identify, document, preserve, and make the collection
available to the public community.
10. Summary of Key Information
Expected total budget Up to $1,500,000
Anticipated Number of new awards Up to 2 awards, with a maximum of
pending adequate proposals of merit $750,000 each.
Maximum duration of awards 3 years
Due Date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due Date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of investigation CY 2023 Q1
Page limit for the central 12 Pages, see Section 4.2.2 Proposal
Scientific/Technical Section of proposals Document

Relevance This program element is relevant to

General information and overview of this
program element
Objective 1.2 of NASA's Strategic Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program
element are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation

E.11-21
General Requirements of the contents of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the preparation
and submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals via
NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposal via
Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this Program
E.11-22
See Table 1 of ROSES-2022 Section IV of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation,
and Section 3 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-
4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and Section IV(b) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is
required; no hardcopy is allowed.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-SBBLEO
Proposers intending to use Grants.gov
should contact Dr. Guillaume Vignaux:
gvignaux@nasaprs.com
Dr. Sharmila Bhattacharya
Space Biology Program
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: spacebiology@nasaprs.com
APPENDIX F: CROSS-DIVISION RESEARCH
U

F.1 U CROSS-DIVISION RESEARCH OVERVIEW U

1. U Introduction
The Science Mission Directorate (SMD) sponsors program elements that apply across
more than one of its five science research areas as defined in Section I of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation. Such cross-division program elements are listed here in
Appendix F of the ROSES NASA Research Announcement (NRA). At the time of the
initial release of this NRA, there are 15 such programs, see below. Unless otherwise
noted in the individual program elements, no contracts will be issued in response to
proposals submitted to program elements in Appendix F, as it does not seem
appropriate for the nature of the work currently solicited.
2. U Data Management Plans
Most proposals to ROSES require a data management plan (DMP) or an explanation of
why one is not necessary given the nature of the work proposed. There is considerable
variation in how the program elements in Appendix F handle this, but for those program
elements that require a DMP, its sufficiency will be evaluated as part of Merit and thus
may have a bearing on whether or not the proposal is selected. The kinds of proposals
that require a data management plan are described in the NASA Plan for Increasing
31TU

Access to Results of Scientific Research and in the SARA Frequently Asked Questions
U31T

( FAQs) for ROSES . Proposers to F.2 Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences
31T 31T

(TWSC) will not be asked for a data management plan, because those are not research
proposals. However, any peer reviewed publications that come out of awards from F.2
(such as conference proceedings) must still meet the requirement that the data behind
figures and tables be available electronically at the time of publication, ideally in
supplementary material with the article. Proposals to F.3 The Exoplanets Research
Program, must include the DMP in the 15-page Science/Technical/ Management
section of the proposal. Proposals to program elements that don’t specify otherwise,
must follow the ROSES default and include the DMP in a special section, not to exceed
two pages in length, immediately following the References and Citations section for the
Scientific/Technical/Management portion of the proposal. Please refer to those program
elements for details. FINESST (F.5) should refer to the text of that program element for
requirements particular to that program element focused on graduate student research.
The DMP must cover any data needed to validate the scientific conclusions of peer-
reviewed publications, particularly data underlying figures, maps, and tables. It also
needs to cover any other data and software that would enable future research or the
replication/reproduction of published results.
"Data" does not include preliminary and other unpublished data, data in prepublication
documents, private communications, or certain other types of information that have
been specifically exempted from the DMP requirement.
In the case of a project that would produce no data, as defined above, or only data
specifically exempted, the DMP must state that no data preservation or data sharing is
needed, but must also explain why. In a case where no appropriate archive exists for a

F.1-1
particular data set, the DMP should discuss alternative methods for making the data
publicly available.
The DMP must contain the following elements, as appropriate to the project, in
adequate detail for review:
• A description of data types, volume, formats, and (where relevant) standards;
• A description of the schedule for data archiving and sharing;
• A description of the intended repositories for archived data, including
mechanisms for public access and distribution;
• A discussion of how the plan enables long-term preservation of data;
• A discussion of roles and responsibilities of team members in accomplishing the
DMP. If funds are required for data management activities, these should be
covered in the normal budget and budget justification sections of the proposal.
Software, whether a stand-alone program, an enhancement to existing code, or a
module that interfaces with existing codes, created as part of a ROSES award, should
be made publicly available when it is practical and feasible to do so, and when there is
scientific utility in doing so. Stand-alone code that is not straightforward to implement, or
whose utility is significantly outweighed by the costs to share it, is not expected to be
made available. This expectation extends to three types of software, defined as follows:
Short Name Name Description Examples
Libraries Libraries and Generic tools implementing Numerical Recipes, NumPy,
toolkits well-known algorithms, general FFTs, LAPACK, scikit-
providing statistical analysis learn, AstroPy, GDAL
or visualization, and so on,
that are incorporated in
other software categories.
Analysis Analysis, post- Generalized software (not Stand-alone image processing,
software processing, or low-level libraries) used to topology analysis, vector-field
visualization manipulate measurements analysis, satellite analysis tools,
software or model results to visualize and so on
or gain understanding.
Frameworks Modeling Multicomponent software Community Earth System
frameworks systems that incorporate a Model (CESM) is a collection of
variety of models and coupled models including
couple them together in a atmospheric, oceanographic,
complex way. sea ice, land surface, and other
models
SMD expects that the source code, with associated documentation sufficient to enable
use of the code, will be made publicly available as Open Source Software (OSS) under
an appropriately permissive license (e.g., Apache-2, BSD-3-Clause, GPL). This
0T 0T

includes all software developed with SMD funding used in the production of data
products, as well as software developed to discover, access, visualize, and transform
NASA data. OSS is defined as software that can be accessed, used, modified, and

F.1-2
shared by anyone. Awardees will not be required to continue maintenance of their
software beyond the submission of the software to an appropriate repository.
Proposers should refer to Scientific Information policy (SPD-41) for a summary of
31T 31T

expectations and requirements for the sharing of publications, data, and software
produced as part of ROSES awards.
3. Program Elements
The Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences (TWSC) program element F.2
solicits proposals for topical workshops, symposia, conferences, and other
scientific/technical meetings that advance the goals and objectives of the Astrophysics,
the Biological and Physical Sciences, Earth Science, Heliophysics, and Planetary
Science Divisions. This program has no fixed due date or budget; proposals may be
submitted at any time but selection is dependent on the availability of funds in the
specific program or focus area. Thus, before submitting, potential proposers to TWSC
are strongly urged to contact an appropriate SMD Program Officer(s) (at
http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list/) to investigate the
31T 31T

availability of funds. This program element now allows proposals for events on
astrophysics topics.
The Exoplanets Research Program (XRP) program element F.3 solicits basic research
proposals to advance our knowledge and understanding of exoplanetary systems. Its
objectives are the detection and characterization of planets and planetary systems
outside of our Solar System, including the determination of their compositions,
dynamics, energetics, and chemical behaviors. Research supported by this call may
include observations, theoretical studies, and modeling. Observational proposals
focused on detecting, validating, or characterizing potentially habitable planets and
supporting the detection of biosignatures using current or future space telescopes also
fall within the scope of the XRP.
The Habitable Worlds (HW) program element F.4 solicits basic research proposals
about processes and conditions that create and maintain potentially habitable
environments. This Program includes aspects of research relevant to the Heliophysics
and Planetary Science Divisions. A common goal of these programs is to identify the
characteristics and the distribution of potentially habitable environments in the Solar
System and beyond.
Future Investigators in NASA Earth and Space Science and Technology (F.5) solicits
11T 11T

proposals from accredited U.S. universities and other eligible organizations for graduate
student-designed and performed research projects that contribute to SMD's science,
technology and exploration goals. There must be a Principal Investigator (PI) at the
submitting institution who will serve as the research mentor and the graduate student is
listed on the proposal as a student participant.
The SMD Science Activation Program Integration proposal element (F.6) seeks to
further enable NASA science experts and content into the learning environment more
effectively and efficiently with learners of all ages. Competitively selected teams from
across the Nation work in partnership with each other and with NASA to connect NASA

F.1-3
science experts, real content, and experiences with community leaders to do science in
ways that activate participation and promote understanding.
The Support for Open-Source Software Tools, Frameworks, and Libraries program (F.7)
seeks proposals for the improvement and sustainment of high-value, open-source tools,
frameworks, and libraries that have made significant impacts to the SMD science
community.
Supplemental Open-Source Software Awards are used to encourage the conversion of
legacy software into modern code to be released under a generally accepted, open-
source license (e.g., Apache-2, BSD-2-clause, GPL). Proposals for such supplements
to add a software component to their "parent" award may be submitted either within 90
days of the selection of the parent award or no fewer than 90 days in advance of the
yearly anniversary date of the parent award. See program element F.8.
The Citizen Science Seed Funding Program aims to incubate citizen science projects as
they are being conceived or during critical transitions, like the year when they are first
launched or beta tested (i.e., when the first group of volunteers is invited to try the
project) or when the project changes scientific direction. See program element F.9.
Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of the Moon (PRISM) solicits the
development and flight of science-driven suites of instruments and technology
demonstration payloads that address science goals related to the Moon of any SMD 31T 31T

division. They may, in addition, also address: 1) Strategic Knowledge Gaps of HEOMD
31T 31T

and/or 2) any technology demonstration goals of STMD that advance capabilities for
31T 31T

science, exploration, or commercial development of the Moon. See program element

F.10.
Stand-Alone Location-Agnostic Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of
the Moon will solicit proposals for investigations that include development and flight of
science-driven payloads to be delivered to the lunar surface by the Commercial Lunar
31T

Payload Services (CLPS) . This PRISM call is for science investigations that are stand-
31T

alone (i.e., single instruments rather than suites) and location agnostic. See program
element F.11.
The Artemis Deployed Instruments Program will solicit proposals for instruments to be
deployed on the surface of the Moon during the first crewed lunar landing. The first
landing will be a sortie mission in the south polar region of the Moon, within 6º of latitude
from the south pole, providing access to persistently illuminated areas of the Moon and
potential access to surface-accessible volatile deposits. See program element F.12.
The Lunar Terrain Vehicle Instruments Program will solicit proposals for instruments to
be deployed on the Lunar Terrain Vehicle that will be delivered to the lunar surface
ahead of the second crewed Artemis lunar surface mission. See program element F.13.
Transform to OPen Science (TOPS) Training will solicit proposals for the development
of Open Science learning curriculum to advance open science literacy, and capacity
building through one-day meetings, workshops, and summer schools. See program
element F.14.
High Priority Open-Source Science will support innovative open-source tools, software,
frameworks, data formats, and libraries that will have a significant impact to the SMD

F.1-4
science community. The program will have a rolling deadline, and proposals submitted
to this program will be expected to complete the work within one year. See F.15.
Supplement for Scientific Analysis Platforms will solicit proposals for supplemental
35T

support to existing awards for usage of interactive environments accessible through a

web browser that provide access to data and computing resources to support scientific
analysis and processing. This program will have a rolling deadline when released. See
35T

F.16.
Any other cross-division programs that are defined during the calendar year will be
issued as amendments to ROSES, typically 90 days in advance of their established
Proposal Due Dates.

F.1-5
F.2 TOPICAL WORKSHOPS, SYMPOSIA, AND CONFERENCES
NOTICE: Amended May 11, 2022. This amendment releases the final
text for this program element, which had been listed as "TBD". TWSC
is a no-due-date program and proposals may be submitted at any time
until May 12, 2023.
While notices of intent may not be submitted, a potential proposer
shall first contact a program officer (PO) in a relevant topical area(s).
This webpage lists the POs authorized, but not obligated, to review a
TWSC proposal. Do not prepare or submit a proposal until at least one
authorized SMD PO confirms relevancy and/or availability of funds.
TWSC proposals that identify non-authorized POs may be returned
without review as non-compliant.
1. Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
Topical Workshops, Symposia, and Conferences (TWSC) is a program element in
Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES). ROSES, an "omnibus"
solicitation, provides common guidelines and information in the 2022 Summary of
Solicitation. Proposals submitted fewer than 90 days prior to the requested start date for
the period of performance, i.e., when NASA funds will be needed to support the event,
may be returned as noncompliant unless authorized prior to submission by the
reviewing program(s).
Through TWSC, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) solicits proposals from eligible
organizations for their events, including asynchronous and virtual workshops, etc., that
contribute to SMD's science, technology and exploration research goals. Proposal
submission requires designation of at least one reviewing division or office. However,
proposals that are relevant to more than one division are welcome.
TWSC awards primarily are grants made under the authority of 2 CFR 200. If
necessary, as described in Section 3.4 of the Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Manual (GCAM) "Determining Whether to Issue a Grant or Cooperative Agreement",
NASA may choose to issue cooperative agreements. TWSC proposals align to 2 CFR §
200.432 Conferences, which includes meetings, retreats, seminars, symposiums,
workshops or events with a primary purpose to disseminate technical information
beyond SMD. Requesting support for ground transportation, meals or other sustenance
may be allowable only when 1) reasonable and necessary to complete or deliver the
event and 2) justified with evidence, e.g., meets an accessibility or a safety need. As
needed, the costs of identifying, but not providing, locally available dependent-care
resources are allowable.
A TWSC proposal must describe any travel, logistics, accessibility, and health and
safety considerations, including the security of proposed technologies, provided to
participants. If the proposing organization is the host of a TWSC event, then a PI shall
describe in the proposal the results of consultations within the proposing organization
regarding safety policies and risk mitigation procedures in the case of a local or national
public health or another type of emergency. When a PI’s institution is not the primary
host organizing the event, then the proposal shall describe the results of any

F.2-1
consultations with the organizers regarding any safety policies/procedures, travel
flexibilities, alternate dates, plans for virtual participation, etc.
The scope of this program element across SMD is described in Section 2. Section 3
describes how proposals submitted in response to this program element must connect
the proposed content of the event to specific goals, e.g., in SMD program elements or
the NASA Science Plan. Section 4 describes principles and constraints for proposals
submitted in response to this program element.
2. Scope of Program
Where other ROSES program elements specifically solicit for events, proposals must be
submitted in response to those program elements instead of this one. The TWSC
program element primarily solicits non-federal proposals for topical workshops,
symposia, conferences, and other scientific or technical meetings (herein referred to as
"events"). By definition TWSC events 1) are sponsored or hosted by a non-federal
agency. (Note: examples of federal agencies include NASA centers and facilities) and
2) advance or align to the goals and objectives of one or more SMD funding Division or
Office. Proposals that contribute to SMD's cross-divisional science, technology, and
exploration goals also are solicited. When NASA and other civil servants propose to
TWSC, the event that they proposed may be subject to limitations described in Section
4.7 "Within NASA, Inter-Agency and NASA-as Primary Sponsor Awards".
Proposals are not limited to traditional, e.g., in-person, meetings. Multi-faceted events 1)
focused on or related to the application of science, technology, engineering, arts, and
math (STEAM) or 2) that are culturally relevant to and focused on targeted populations,
such as women, ethnic minorities, rural populations, persons with disabilities, etc. may
be eligible when the proposal documents a specific contribution to SMD's goals. Non-
technical or general audience events that integrate NASA Science content into the arts
or are science literacy focused are not eligible.
Technical or scientific events that are open to the general public are permissible, but
such events may not be a funding priority. Proposals for multiple related events (e.g.,
seminar series) should be well justified.
Historically, this program element has been directed at, and limited to, scientific and
technical events of interest to SMD. Examples of TWSC-selected proposals, including
organization name, PI name, and proposal title/abstract, for TWSC-2017,TWSC-2018
and TWSC-19 are available for download.
SMD emphasizes that effective January 29, 2020 the NASA Governance and Strategic
Management Handbook added and explained “Inclusion” as an Agency core value:
"NASA is committed to a culture of diversity, inclusion, and equity, where all employees
feel welcome, respected, and engaged. To achieve the greatest mission success,
NASA embraces hiring, developing, and growing a diverse and inclusive workforce in a
positive and safe work environment where individuals can be authentic. This value
enables NASA to attract the best talent, grow the capabilities of the entire workforce,
and empower everyone to fully contribute." TWSC-eligible events may in whole or in
part explore actual or potential contributions to NASA's Inclusion core value or other
aspects related to the state or health of the STEM professions relevant to SMD.

F.2-2
This program element does not support; 1) most formal and informal pre-K-16
curriculum development; and/or 2) scholarships or fellowships defined and designed to
fund an individual student to obtain an associates, bachelors, or graduate degree.
Please note that paying registration costs, travel or logistical support, etc., for students
or citizen scientists or others to participate in the proposed event is not a scholarship or
fellowship and may be included in proposal and budget.
Proposed events may be for the dissemination of the relevant science itself; for data
analysis that leads to science; and may, but are not required to, include relevant
technologies, methods, and capabilities. Events that focus on code development, data
compression algorithms, higher order data products, model intercomparisons, the
enhancement and/or application of new equipment to make pertinent measurements,
etc. are welcome.
If an event-related proposal is not eligible for TWSC, other ROSES elements, or for
SMD's other broad agency announcements, then the prospective proposers may ask
the interested NASA funding program point of contact to consult with TWSC's overall
POC listed in Section 6 regarding potential alternatives.
3. Relevance to SMD's Goals and Objectives
Proposals submitted in response to this program element must demonstrate the
relevance of the event to SMD. This can be done by showing how the
scientific/technical area(s) to be covered will advance high-level SMD goals and
objectives, and specific outcomes identified in a) ROSES program elements, b)
roadmaps, c) other program documents, such as the NASA Science Plan, findings in
decadal surveys, or d) the reports of NASA advisory bodies or other groups relevant to
NASA. The SMD Science Plan Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence,
and other documents, may be found at https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-
strategy/.
Proposers that choose to demonstrate relevance by reference to ROSES elements are
not limited to those solicited in the current ROSES. Some program element calls do not
appear annually, but research in that area continues and TWSC proposals may still be
possible. All proposers must state from what source, e.g., ROSES program element,
roadmap, decadal survey, etc., the claim of SMD relevance derives. The following sub-
sections present a partial overview of the research funded by SMD's science and other
divisions that accept TWSC proposals.
Proposers also may choose to address relevance by reference to 1) SMD-relevant
aspect(s) of the NASA 2022 Strategic Plan issued March 28, 2022 or 2) SMD aspect(s)
in the most recent NASA Equity Action Plan, or both.
3.1 Additional Information on Earth Science Relevance
The overarching goal of NASA's Earth Science program is to develop a scientific
understanding of Earth as a system. NASA's Earth Science Research Program supports
research activities that address the Earth system and seek to characterize its properties
on a broad range of spatial and temporal scales, to understand the naturally occurring
and human-induced processes that drive the Earth system, and to improve our
capability for predicting its future evolution. The focus of the Earth Science Research

F.2-3
Program is the use of space-based measurements to provide information not available
by other means.
The Earth Science Research Program contributes to NASA’s mission, in particular is the
sole focus of the Strategic Objective 1.1: "Understand the Earth system and its climate"
(from the 2022 NASA Strategic Plan). This strategic objective involves the following key
elements:
• Advance the understanding of changes in the Earth's radiation balance, air
quality, and the ozone layer that result from changes in atmospheric composition;
• Improve the capability to predict weather and extreme weather events;
• Detect and predict changes in Earth’s ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles,
including land cover, biodiversity, and the global carbon cycle;
• Enable better assessment and management of water quality and quantity to
accurately predict how the global water cycle evolves in response to climate
change;
• Improve the ability to predict climate changes by better understanding the roles
and interactions of the oceans, atmosphere, land, and ice in the climate system;
• Characterize the dynamics of the Earth’s surface and interior, improving the
capability to assess and respond to natural hazards and extreme events; and
• Further the use of Earth system science research to inform decisions and provide
benefits to society.
Earth Science proposers should review ROSES-2022 A.1 Earth Science Research
Overview for additional details. The Earth Science Division (ESD) welcomes TWSC
proposals that relate to the following sections of A.1: Research and Analysis Focus
Areas (Section 2), Applied Sciences (Section 3), Technology (Section 4), Earth Science
Data Systems (Section 5) and Enabling Capability (Section 6).
Earth science proposals must demonstrate a clear link to past, present, or future NASA
Earth science data and/or models. This link could include, but is not limited to: NASA
satellite remote sensing data (including joint missions of NASA and its interagency and
international partners), remote sensing data that pertains to future NASA observing
systems, remote sensing and in-situ data from NASA or NASA-affiliated suborbital
activities such as airborne campaigns and surface-based networks, data acquired via
NASA’s Commercial SmallSat Data Acquisition (CSDA) Program (which is available at
no cost to NASA-funded researchers), NASA models that incorporate satellite and/or
suborbital data, and technology projects related to current and future NASA observing
systems. Proposals that anticipate and/or allow for enhanced scientific return from the
Earth System Observatory are welcome. Proposals that incorporate non-NASA data,
including international satellite data, commercial satellite data, and social science data
are also welcome.
Any data proposed from any source, including NASA and other satellite data, ancillary
data, and data from commercial sources, must be publicly available data, in the sense
that these data are openly accessible. Commercial data need not be free, but it must be
purchasable by all. Wherever possible, proposals should reflect the principles of Open
Science as described on the Earthdata website.

F.2-4
3.2 Additional Information on Heliophysics Relevance
Heliophysics proposers should review ROSES-2022 B.1 Heliophysics Research
Program Overview for complete information. In pursuit of the part of the NASA Strategic
Objective related to Heliophysics, i.e., to understand Sun and its interactions with the
Earth and the Solar System, including space weather, and with guidance from the
National Research Council’s most recent decadal survey, Solar and Space Physics, A
Science for a Technological Society (download free PDF), key objectives are:
• Explore and characterize the physical processes in the space environment from
the Sun to the heliopause and throughout the universe
• Advance our understanding of the Sun’s activity, and the connections between
solar variability and Earth and planetary space environments, the outer reaches
of our solar system, and the interstellar medium
• Develop the knowledge and capability to detect and predict extreme conditions in
space to protect life and society and to safeguard human and robotic explorers
beyond Earth.
The research program supports theory, modeling, and data analysis utilizing remote
sensing and in-situ measurements. The Heliophysics Research Program supports
investigations in all research regimes of Heliophysics: Sun, heliosphere,
magnetosphere, ionosphere, and upper atmosphere. It supports investigations focused
on processes that create space weather events and investigations to enable a capability
for predicting future space weather events. The research program also supports
investigations that span the regimes and address a systems approach – emphasizing
the understanding of fundamental processes and interconnections across the traditional
science disciplines on a broad range of spatial and temporal scales.
For further information, consult Our Dynamic Space Environment: Heliophysics Science
and Technology Roadmap for 2014-2033 (download PDF).
3.3 Additional Information on Planetary Science Relevance
Planetary Science proposers should review ROSES-2022 C.1 Planetary Science
Research Program Overview for complete information. The Planetary Science
Research Program, managed by the Planetary Science Division (PSD), funds events
that address the broad strategic objective to "Advance scientific knowledge of the origin
and history of the solar system, the potential for life elsewhere, and the hazards and
resources present as humans explore space", as described in Strategy 1.1 in Science
2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence. To pursue this objective, the Planetary
Science Division has five science goals below that guide the focus of the division’s
science research and technology development activities. These goals are:
• Explore and observe the objects in the Solar System to understand how they
formed and evolve.
• To understand processes that occur throughout the Solar System, as well as
those specific to individual objects and systems, but inform our understanding of
the fundamental processes at work.
• To use knowledge of the history of the Earth and the life upon it as a guide for
determining the processes and conditions that create and maintain habitable

F.2-5
 environments and to search for ancient and contemporary habitable
environments and explore the possibility of extant life beyond the Earth.
• Improve our understanding of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life
in the Universe.
• Identify and characterize objects in the Solar System that pose threats to Earth or
offer resources for human exploration.
PSD supports a wide range of planetary science and astrobiology investigations in order
to address the goals above, and also supports research into:
• Investigations into the potential for both forward and backward contamination
during planetary exploration, methods to minimize such contamination, and
standards in these areas for spacecraft preparation and operating procedures;
• Investigations which enhance the scientific return of PSD’s missions through the
analysis of data collected by those missions;
• Advancement of laboratory- or spacecraft-based (including small satellites, e.g.,
CubeSats) instrument technology that shows promise for use in scientific
investigations on future planetary missions; and
• Analog studies, laboratory experiments, or fieldwork to increase our
understanding of Solar System bodies or processes and/or to prepare for future
missions.
3.4 Additional Information on Astrophysics Relevance
Astrophysics proposers should review ROSES-2022 D.1 Astrophysics Research
Program Overview. The Astrophysics Division’s (APD) research program has these
strategic objectives 1) to discover how the universe works, 2) to explore how it began
and evolved, and 3) to search for life on planets around other stars. The science goals
for these objectives include the following:
• Probe the origin and destiny of our universe, including the nature of black holes,
dark energy, dark matter, and gravity
• Explore the origin and evolution of the galaxies, stars and planets that make up
our universe
• Discover and study planets around other stars and explore whether they could
harbor life
Proposers should refer to the NASA Science Plan, the Astrophysics Roadmap, and the
Astro2020 Decadal survey entitled Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and
Astrophysics for the 2020s, to gauge the relevance of a proposal to the Astrophysics
Research Program. The relevance to APD's strategic interests should be explicit and
clearly described.
A submitted proposal also should explicitly support past, present, or future NASA
astrophysics missions. Proposals that request that APD be the only source of funding
support are permitted (e.g., the meeting will not happen in the absence of APD funds).
APD also will accept proposals for events that involve funding contributions from
multiple sources. Such “partial support” or “multi-funder” proposals should identify in the
budget and narrative the specific element or elements that will be enabled or
substantially enhanced by APD funding. Such elements may include, but are not limited

F.2-6
to, professional development/training of graduate students and/or early career
scientists, development of a diverse and inclusive astrophysics science community, and
support for participation by members of the community who would not otherwise be able
to do so (either in-person or virtually).
In addition to the standard ROSES programmatic factors, APD selection decisions will
consider the degree to which a proposal meets one or both of the following:
1. The proposal’s topic and scope is compelling and timely and the event will
provide scientific benefits to participants.
2. Typically, it is not sufficient that a proposed event is compelling scientifically. The
event also should feature the strategic interests of the APD division and reflect
APD’s investments in missions and/or projects described in the Astrophysics
Research Program Overview (ROSES D.1).
3.5 Additional Information on Biological and Physical Sciences Relevance
Space Biology and Physical Sciences proposers should review ROSES-2022 E.1
Biological and Physical Sciences Research Overview. The Division of Biological and
Physical Sciences (BPS) supports the NASA 2022 Strategic Plan "Objective 1.2:
Understand the Sun, solar system, and universe" by investigating a wide range of
systems in spaceflight and analog environments.
The Space Biology Research (SBR) program focuses on the effects of short and long
duration spaceflight environment exposure on the biology of cells, microorganisms,
plants, and animals. The SBR program’s goals include: 1) to use microgravity and other
space environment characteristics to enhance understanding of the adaptation and
function of basic biological processes in spaceflight, 2) to develop scientific and
technological knowledge that will contribute to a safe, productive human presence in
space during exploration, and 3) to apply the knowledge and technologies gained to
improve a) our nation's competitiveness and b) the quality of life on Earth.
The Physical Sciences Research (PSR) program conducts experiments in space, on
Earth-based reduced-gravity platforms, and in other ground-based facilities, and
conducts analysis, computational and theoretical investigations, to advance scientific
knowledge in the disciplines of physical science, and to understand the effects of the
space environment on physical and biological systems critical to space exploration.
PSR limits its research support to biophysics, combustion science, complex fluids, dusty
plasmas, fluid physics, materials science, and quantum science and technology.
Proposals for workshops, symposia, conferences, or other technical meetings should
demonstrate clear relevance to the mission of the BPS Division.
3.6 Additional Information on Cross Division Research Relevance
For a proposal that possibly spans more than one type of SMD research there may be
an existing funding opportunity designed to support such activities in Appendix F, see
ROSES-2022 F.1 the Cross Division Research Overview.
TWSC has no dedicated funding and primarily serves as a joint notice of funding
opportunity for one or more of the five science research areas defined in Section I of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation and in Overview Appendices A-E. Some

F.2-7
Appendix F programs do participate on occasion. SMD’s Exploration Science Strategy
and Integration Office, which manages the Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program
and the Commercial Lunar Payload Services initiatives, also may participate.
3.6.1 Open Source Science Initiative
The Open Source Science Initiative (OSSI) welcomes proposals relevant to its goals to
expand open science for the Science Mission Directorate. This includes events that
support the vision of enabling transformation open science through the continuous
evolution of science data and computing as outlined in SMD's Strategy for Data
Management and Computing for Groundbreaking Science 2019-2024. The goals of the
OSSI include development and implementation of capabilities to enable open science,
continuous evolution of data and computer systems, and harnessing the scientific
community and strategic partnerships for innovation. Events designed to expand the
open science capabilities of the SMD scientific community are welcome including:
• Events focused on SMD data, software, or open science practices
• Hackathons, un-conferences, and challenges that build open science skills
• Training in open science
Proposals that include training should align to and address the Transform to Open
Science (TOPS) initiative. In addition to relevance to OSSI, the proposal must also
include how the material produced as part of the event will be made openly available
and plans for inclusive participation in the event.
4. Program Principles and Proposal Constraints
4.1 Allowable Focus of Proposals
A proposed event must bring together existing, future or potential members of scientific
communities relevant to NASA. An event’s goal and allowable focus may enable
science that addresses strategic goals and objectives from Section I of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation. SMD’s principles and other topics articulated in the NASA
Science Strategy or Plan for the Science Mission Directorate entitled Science 2020-
2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence also may be the foci of proposals.
A non-exhaustive list of allowable foci, e.g., enabling activities, may include, for
example, items A through E:
A. Encourage and facilitate the use of SMD mission data.
B. Increase the efficiency of investigators through advanced scientific/technical
training.
C. Increase the efficiency of investigators through the open exchange of ideas.
D. Introduce investigators to new subject areas.
E. Coordinate, communicate, and engage with minority serving institutions (MSI)
such as those listed at https://msiexchange.larc.nasa.gov/; community-based
organizations; and civil rights organizations that advance racial equity and
support underserved communities, including individuals who belong to these
communities, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American
persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color;
members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and

F.2-8
 persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty, inequality, or
systemic barriers to science engagement, education and/or careers.
TWSC proposals should be written so that the overall objective of any proposed activity
is clearly focused on one or more of the enabling activities specified by letters A through
E; on other types of science or technical enabling approaches not listed, or both. It also
is acceptable to have a goal of developing an output that is a prerequisite to achieving a
target laid out in a ROSES program element, roadmap, decadal survey, etc., and to pay
for the support for person time and/or logistics as an expense on the way to
accomplishing that goal.
4.2 Competition and Criteria for Selecting Event Participants
Although SMD may provide only a fraction of the total funds required for an event, SMD
expects participants to be identified through competition; exceptions require reasonable
justification. When funds are requested for the costs of participants to attend an event,
then SMD expects the selection of participants will be based on an open call for
abstracts or other type of application subject to an appropriate, criteria-based review
process that the proposal's narrative describes. There may be reasons to select some
or all participants without competition in order to attain the stated scientific or technical
or other aim of the event. In such cases, a thorough justification for invitational versus
competitive participant selection must be provided in the proposal.
A proposal’s narrative also should describe what, if any, recruitment strategies and
review criteria may be used to ensure an open, collaborative, diverse, and inclusive
NASA science culture. SMD acknowledges the appropriateness of considering other
factors beyond the scientific or technical merit or an abstract or application, such as but
not limited to, geographic, institutional and/or career-stage types of diversity.
As stated in Section III (a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, NASA recognizes
and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive scientific, engineering, and
technology communities. No TWSC participant shall be denied on the grounds of race,
color, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender
identity, sex, marital status, disability, or U.S. Veteran status.
SMD reminds proposers that as a condition of receipt of NASA funding, the awarded
institution acknowledges and agrees to comply (and require any subgrantees,
contractors, successors, transferees, and assignees to comply) with applicable
provisions of national laws and policies prohibiting discrimination. TWSC organizers
share these Federal civil rights obligations. For more information visit:
https://missionstem.nasa.gov/compliance-requirements-nasa-grantees.html.
4.2.1 Limitations on Participants and Events Conducted Within and Outside the
United States
Because conditions can change rapidly in any country at any time for a variety of
reasons and disrupt the proposed or awarded TWSC support, proposals for events
planned outside the U.S. must, at a minimum, demonstrate consultation of the State
Department Travel Advisories website.
For TWSC events, proposers making requests for U.S. travel support must consult and
address the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Considerations for Travelers -
F.2-9
Coronavirus in the U.S. website as well as any applicable state, county or municipal
laws or executive orders. The CDC also provides international travel information, for
example, at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/index.html.
A proposal that requests to include any NASA civil servant as an in-person, on-site
attendee or speaker, is advised that NASA (as of the TWSC issuance date) adheres to
all stipulations of the most recent Model Safety Principles on the Safer Federal
Workforce website. NASA Contractor employees also may be subject to similar
limitations and they will consult their management regarding potential travel to a TWSC
event.
If the subject of the proposed event falls under the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), then only a U.S.
person may be proposed as the PI. The responsibility for adhering to the ITAR and EAR
is shared between the investigator and institution; proposers should consult with the
export control and other experts in their sponsored research office before finalizing such
a proposal.
NASA will consider most events that include participants from only U.S. and People's
Republic of China organizations to be bilateral activities and thus ineligible for funding
from NASA because of legal prohibitions. For details see Section III(c) of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation regarding NASA funding any work that involves the 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.
Proposals for events outside the United States in "Designated Countries" that also are
"State Sponsors of Terrorism" will be subject to additional levels of review by the Office
of International and Interagency Relations (OIIR) that may result in a proposal being
declined. NASA's "Designated Country (DC) List" is hosted on the NASA Export Control
website at https://www.nasa.gov/oiir/export-control. The relevant part of the list is
Column II, i.e., Countries determined by the Department of State to support Terrorism.
The DC list is updated regularly; therefore, proposers should consult the website to
ensure use of the most up-to-date list before submitting their proposal.
Participant support costs for non-U.S. persons, including travel and short-term visa
costs, may be proposed as a direct cost when such costs qualify as "Recruiting costs"
per 2 CFR 200.463. Short-term travel and visa costs (as opposed to longer-term,
immigration visas) are generally allowable expenses that may be proposed as a direct
cost.
Since short-term visas are issued for a specific period and purpose, they may be
identified as directly connected to participation on a TWSC award. For these costs to be
directly charged to a TWSC award; however, the budget narrative must demonstrate
that a non-U.S. person(s):
(1) Is critical and necessary for the conduct of the TWSC event;
(2) Is allowable under the applicable cost principles;
(3) Is consistent with the non-Federal entity's cost accounting practices and non-
Federal entity policy; and
(4) Meets the definition of "direct cost" as described in the applicable cost principles.
For additional information see Subpart E - Cost Principles in 2 CFR 200.

F.2-10
The proposal narrative also should provide sufficient explanation for how non-U.S.
participant support is relevant to SMD in accordance with Section 3 herein.
4.3 Availability of Funding
This program element has no dedicated budget, thus selected proposals will be funded
by the relevant SMD Division, office, or initiative. The number of proposals selected
depends on the number and quality of proposals submitted and on the availability of
funds from a relevant SMD program. Before submitting, potential proposers must
contact and receive a response from a SMD Program Officer(s) to investigate the
availability of funds. Until at least one authorized NASA HQ SMD Program Officer
confirms relevancy and availability of funds, please do not prepare or submit a proposal.
Not every person working at NASA Headquarters, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
or a NASA Center is a SMD program officer. Contact information for SMD Program
Officers is available at http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list/.
4.3.1 Non-U.S. and U.S. Sources
Subject to the Section 4.2.1 "Limitations on Participants and Events Conducted Within
and Outside the United States", the direct purchase of supplies and/or services that do
not constitute research, e.g., keynote speakers, facilitators, software licenses, from non-
U.S. and U.S. sources, including associated travel and related support, as a subaward
by the U.S. award recipients is permitted. For information on the required
documentation for consultants, see 2 CFR § 200.459 Professional service costs. This
ROSES program element does not fund foreign or domestic research projects.
4.3.2 Pass-Through Awards and Connections with Professional Networks or
Societies and Research or Media Platforms
This program element does not allow for the award of pass-through funds, e.g., mini-
grants or prizes, to any individuals or organizations for research or educational
activities, e.g., K-12 education teacher professional development.
Criteria-based or competitively-based travel awards and recognition awards associated
with a TWSC event, e.g., best student poster/paper, are permitted, when justified in the
proposal and budget as a type of purchase per Section 4.3.1 or as a participant support
cost.
Proposals to support special events, e.g., landmark anniversaries in a
society/professional association, are welcome. Proposers also may request support for
events designed to increase the efficiency of investigators through advanced
scientific/technical training that coincide or extend an annual or other meeting of a
professional association, scientific society, etc. Proposers may request funding for
publication or dissemination activities when such costs are for the scheduled event’s a)
formal written proceedings or b) other media, such as but not limited to social media
and podcasts.
TWSC is not a source of single or multi-year infrastructure funding used to sustain
operations for content platforms, communities of practice, or other
networks/professional societies, or to produce broadcast, internet, computer, etc.
programs. To request such infrastructure support, contact the appropriate program

F.2-11
manager in SMD at NASA Headquarters to inquire about the availability of other
opportunities, such as invitation-only proposals.
4.3.3 Technology and Data
Proposals that involve hackathons in order to plan to develop new or emerging
technologies/research agendas or that feature existing SMD data and
technologies/research are welcome.
If technology, data, etc. are required to support the purpose of the proposal, then the
purchase and/or modification of existing products is permissible. With the exception of
hackathons and similar innovative meetings, the acquisition, creation, or maintenance of
new technologies, data, etc., may not be the main purpose of the proposal. TWSC
proposals normally do not have a data management plans nor propose to create new or
enhanced technologies. Proposals that need a data management plan and/or would
generate a patent are probably research or development projects and not TWSC
events. Please contact a program officer regarding data management plan concerns
prior to submitting a proposal.
4.4 Constraints on Logistics
The logistics of the event must be described well enough for SMD to ensure it will
achieve the stated purpose(s). This includes and is not limited to the size, location,
duration, scheduling, and cost of the event for both sponsor(s) and attendees. No venue
shall be proposed that discriminates on the grounds of race, color, age, ethnicity,
religion, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, marital status, disability, or
status as a U.S. Veteran.
The funding request, whether a small grant to subsidize student or citizen scientist
participation or full costs for a large symposium, must be commensurate with (a)
NASA's stewardship roles for the subject science and the benefiting science community,
(b) the importance of the event to SMD in attaining its goals and objectives, and (c)
NASA’s responsibility to manage federal, i.e., taxpayer, funds and expectations.
4.4.1 Geographic Location
Proposers are encouraged to choose a U.S. location, e.g., one of the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, a U.S. territory. The proposal should explain why a non-U.S.
location is justified. For instance, when a meeting sponsor has funding from multiple
nations, include in the proposal or the budget narrative a description of the choice of
location and its impact on potential participation. The narrative also should indicate
whether the event is totally in-person or virtual or a hybrid.
4.4.2 Facilities
NASA encourages using facilities that are appropriate to the proposed event, e.g., an
academic facility, a public or private conference center, a retreat facility. NASA
discourages the use of entertainment, recreation, sporting, or luxury venues. Proposals
should explain any such unusual facilities choice. Facilities or venues shall provide
equal and integrated access for individuals with disabilities. When access is not
apparent, events may have to identify or add signage that enables participants with

F.2-12
disabilities to navigate the accessible routes to a venue's restrooms, meeting rooms,
etc.
4.4.3 Videoconferencing, Access Innovations and Similar Purchases
Proposers may request funds to purchase and distribute the necessary equipment
and/or contract with a service provider for videoconferencing, augmented reality,
telepresence robots, real-time sign-language interpretation, live captioning,
communications software/licenses, etc. to replace or reduce participant travel to events
and to produce agendas and proceedings. Explain the importance of these
purchases/services and how they relate to the success, accessibility and safety
considerations for the event in the proposal's narrative. For these types of requests, in
addition to explaining the role in the event, note whether total cost is over $5,000 in the
budget. When over $5,000 provide a short, clear budget justification, e.g., a lease
versus purchase analysis. For example, document non-availability of a lease option by
naming at least three leasing sources contacted with dates.
Communications and other technology often provide access innovations; however,
some internet, media and technology choices create access challenges for participants
who need language, audio, visual or other supports. The following federal guidance
applies to NASA centers and when it is incorporated into federal contracts, including
NASA’s JPL. TWSC provides these references to benefit all proposer types (federal and
non-federal):
• On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Access Board published a correction to the final
rule updating accessibility requirements for information and communication
technology (ICT) covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Section
255 of the Communications Act.
• The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Office of Government-wide
Policy is tasked under law to provide technical assistance to help Federal
agencies comply with these requirements, and ensure that covered ICT is
accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities. Visit
https://www.section508.gov/.
• Universal Design and Accessibility is a concept in which environments or
products are designed to be useable by all people, to the greatest extent
possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. Learn more at
https://www.section508.gov/develop/universal-design/
4.5 Award Duration
Most awards from this program element have a performance period of 12 months.
Under certain circumstances, and if properly justified, it is permissible to propose
multiple events or large events that span across a longer performance period. The
maximum performance period request is 36 months or 3 years. For example, a pair of
meetings before and after fieldwork, targets of opportunity (oil spills, comet apparitions,
etc.) or another large project, e.g., recurring, even annual, meetings that may or may
not change topics or themes, that make sense to plan and propose together. Otherwise,
proposers should plan on a single event.

F.2-13
SMD is deeply concerned for the health and safety of people involved in NASA research
dissemination activities funded via TWSC. NASA will do our part to help awardees 1) to
continue to disseminate technical information; 2) to develop and to sustain future
leaders, particularly graduate students, postdocs and early career researchers in the
United States, and 3) to create a more collaborative, diverse and inclusive NASA
science culture via TWSC. Therefore, should funded-TWSC projects be disrupted and
require a performance period extension and/or to change scope, SMD program
managers will be flexible and will ask the NASA Shared Services Center to be as
accommodating as Federal Grant Policy Regulations permit.
4.6 Antidiscrimination, Diversity, Inclusion and Equity
Everyone related to NASA science, including awardees associated with this program
element, should report harassment claims in accordance with the NASA Policy
Statement on Antidiscrimination in NASA Conducted or Funded Program, Activities, and
Institutions dated September 15, 2020 or later at:
https://missionstem.nasa.gov/docs/NASA_Policy_Statement_Antidiscrimination-
SIGNED_TAGGED.pdf. For detailed guidance related to filing a harassment complaint to
NASA visit https://missionstem.nasa.gov/filing-a-complaint.html.
NASA’s MissionSTEM Web site is available to assist programs and activities that
receive NASA funding to meet their obligations under equal opportunity laws and
augments the Agency's ongoing civil rights compliance reviews of NASA grant
recipients. MissionSTEM hosts video and other media on topics such as diversity and
inclusion leadership; implicit bias in STEM environments; etc.
An event’s diversity and inclusion policies and practices should make clear that
everyone is welcome within NASA Science and strive to create an environment that is
free of harassment and discrimination. Organizers of events must have a specific policy,
code of conduct, or meeting ground rules provided in advance and available during the
event for all participants.
Proposals shall include a brief overview of the meeting conduct principles or policies
and identify one or more individuals responsible for addressing violations of them.
Selected examples of such meeting rules include:
• American Geophysical Union (AGU) Meetings Code of Conduct at
https://www.agu.org/Plan-for-a-Meeting/AGUMeetings/Meetings-
Resources/Meetings-code-of-conduct
• American Meteorological Society (AMS) Statement on Professional and
Respectful Conduct at AMS Meetings at
https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/meetings-events/attendees/professional-
and-respectful-conduct-at-ams-meetings/
• Geological Society of America Events Code of Conduct at
https://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Events/EventConductCode/GSA/Events/Condu
ct.aspx
• American Astronomical Society (AAS) Anti-Harassment Policy for AAS and
Division Meetings and Activities at https://aas.org/policies/anti-harassment-
policy-aas-division-meetings-activities

F.2-14
 • Ecological Society of America’s Code of Conduct for ESA Events at
https://www.esa.org/events/code-of-conduct-for-esa-events/
• The General Services Administration’s (GSA) Technology Transformation
Services (TTS) seeks to improve the public’s experience with government by
helping agencies make their services more accessible, efficient, and effective.
TTS’s Code of Conduct summarizes federal anti-harassment law and GSA’s
plain language policy meant to promote a culture of inclusion and respect.
https://handbook.tts.gsa.gov/code-of-conduct/.
Additionally, proposers should consult and collaborate with an Accessibility Resource
Center or equivalent organization, prior to proposal submission to help ensure
awareness of disability as a facet of diversity to advance access for the event and in
recruiting. If not covered in the code of conduct or event principles, the proposal should
identify where to address feedback or concerns related to accessibility. TWSC
encourages all proposers to explain briefly in the proposal equal access and any
universal design plans. If the TWSC proposal is a contribution to a third party’s event,
the proposal should explain how the third-party addresses accessibility.
See also the U.S. Access Board website for research, guidelines and standards
resources at https://www.access-board.gov/.
4.7 Within NASA, Inter-Agency and NASA-as Primary Sponsor Awards
For event proposals submitted by NASA civil servants, there are two NASA Procedural
Requirements documents (NPRs) that will be important when planning an event
involving a NASA Center or Facility. Such proposers must review NPR 9770.1 Subject:
NASA Conference Approval and Reporting and NPR 9710.1 Subject: General Travel
Requirements regarding the financial management requirements for conference
planning, approval, attendance, and reporting for NASA. These NPRs specify in section
P.2 Applicability that these NPRs are applicable to recipients of grants and cooperative
agreements only to the extent specified or referenced in the award. Therefore, these
NPRs while applicable to intra-NASA funding transfers, normally will not apply to most
TWSC grants, cooperative agreements, and inter-agency transfer agreements.
If the proposer anticipates that the resulting award will not be a grant or cooperative
agreement (i.e., if the proposing institution is a Government laboratory, including the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory or a Federal Agency) or the result of the award is that NASA will
be the primary sponsor of a conference, then the proposal must clearly state this fact,
because NASA must provide detailed reports to other Government stakeholders on
NASA-sponsored conferences. In addition, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
policy memoranda, statute and federal regulations may limit options for NASA-
sponsored conferences.
4.8 Grant or Cooperative Agreement Awardees as Sponsors
The recipient of a TWSC grant or cooperative agreement is an event's sponsor, not
NASA or SMD. The awardee shall place this disclaimer statement immediately below or
immediately to the right of the NASA Insignia Format for Grantees:

F.2-15
 Disclaimer Statement:
"This event is based upon work supported by a National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) grant <insert number> to <insert name of the institutional
recipient.> Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in
this material are those of the organizers and do not necessarily reflect the views of
NASA."
For more details on this condition and for the Insignia’s image file available for use by
TWSC awards, download a copy of “NASA Insignia Guidelines for NASA Grantees”
from the landing page: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/nssc/grants.
5. Other Considerations
The amount that NASA can spend on TWSC is limited. Support from this program
element is exclusively for scientific/technical subjects, see Sections 1 and 2.
This program element may not result in the award of a contract, only a grant,
cooperative agreement, an interagency agreement, or internal funding, i.e., an intra-
agency transfer from Headquarters to a NASA Center or Facility or JPL.
Proposals to this program may include a letter(s) of affirmation from a relevant
stakeholder community.
Not all proposals to this program element are peer reviewed by members of the broad
science community beyond NASA Headquarters. Depending on the availability of
appropriately knowledgeable SMD staff and the size of the request, some submissions
may be reviewed only by program managers at NASA Headquarters.
Events that are proposed in response to this program element should have a public
purpose and/or benefit, i.e., the event is primarily for the proposer’s own purposes and
NASA is supporting only with financial assistance. Thus, NASA may not direct a
recipient in arranging the event or in providing other services for NASA's benefit. The
proposed event must be run by the recipient, not by NASA. NASA projects that would
satisfy a NASA requirement or provide a crucial deliverable (such as a decadal survey)
through an event may not be supported through this call. Events sponsored or initiated
by NASA primarily to meet a specific NASA need or obtain information for the direct
benefit of NASA must be supported by means of a contract and may not be proposed in
response to this program element.
Data Management Plans are not required for proposals submitted to this program
element However, if appropriate, then proposers may present a data management plan
with the proposal or NASA may require one later. Regardless of whether a DMP is or is
not submitted or requested by SMD, information, data, underlying figures, maps, tables,
etc., made public as the result of a TWSC award must be made available as described
in Section II(c) of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
In order to route a proposal to the appropriate SMD personnel, proposers shall provide
on the NSPIRES cover page the name of an authorized point of contact and identify the
relevant science division and/or program(s).

F.2-16
6. Proposal Alignment and Risks Checklist
The following two-part checklist is not submitted as part of the proposal. This checklist
is designed to help proposers 1) align proposals to the TWSC solicitation and 2)
ensure the proposal disclosed and addresses risks, if any, that could prevent review or
selection.
Part 1: Proposal Alignment Considerations
1. Is the proposal event-focused, e.g., topical workshops, symposia, conferences,
other scientific/technical meetings or similar activity, whether in-person or virtual?
Note: Events may be a hybrid of virtual and non-virtual. See Section 4.3.3
"Technology and Data" and Section 4.4.3 "Videoconferencing, Access Innovations
and Similar Purchases".
2. Does the proposal explain how the proposed event(s) advance(s) the
goals/objectives of the funding SMD Division(s)?
3. Regarding its relevance to SMD, does the proposal 1) advance high-level SMD
goals/objectives and/or 2) address specific, existing or anticipated, outcomes
identified in the SMD Science Plan Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific
Excellence, NASA's most current Strategic Plan, another ROSES program
element(s), or other SMD documents, e.g., roadmaps, decadal survey findings,
reports of NASA advisory bodies or other groups relevant to NASA?
4. Does the proposal briefly describe open recruitment of participants, e.g., identify
review members or types of review processes or review criteria and provide a
recruitment URL? If the proposal is for an invitational event, is participant selection,
justified or explained? See Section 4.2 "Competition and Criteria for Selecting Event
Participants".
5. Does the proposal include a brief overview of the event’s conduct principles/policies
and does it identify a responsible person(s), i.e., makes clear that the proposed
event’s environment is safe, accessible, inclusive, diverse, and free of harassment
and discrimination? See Section 4.6 "Antidiscrimination, Diversity, Inclusion and
Equity" and Section 1. "Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description".
Organizers of events must have a specific policy, code of conduct or meeting
ground rules provided in advance and available during the event for all participants.
Does the proposal describe any travel flexibilities, venue accessibility challenges,
and participant health and safety strategies?
6. Will the event occur at a NASA Center or Facility? If so, does the proposal
reference/acknowledge the NASA Procedural Requirements documents or NPRs?
NPR 9770.1 Subject: NASA Conference Approval and Reporting and NPR 9710.1
Subject: General Travel Requirements provide the financial management
requirements for conference planning, approval, attendance, and reporting for
NASA. See Section 4.7 "Within NASA, Inter-Agency and NASA-as Primary Sponsor
Awards." NOTE: These NPRs normally are applicable only to intra-NASA funding
transfers and not to grants/cooperative agreements.
7. Is there explanation of how the proposed event(s) have a public purpose and/or
benefit, i.e., the event is primarily for the proposer’s own purposes? What are the
expected public benefits?

F.2-17
Part 2: Proposal Risk Considerations
1. Does the event include only participants from the U.S. and the People's Republic of
China or occur in China? If yes, does the proposal discuss the details?
2. Does the proposal request funds for events organized by or held in a "Designated
Country" (DC)? Check the "Designated Country List" on the NASA Export Control
website. See 4.2.1 "Limitations on Participants and Events Conducted in Designated
Countries".
3. Is the proposed event hosted at an entertainment, recreation, sporting or luxury
venue? Ensure the proposal explains any unusual venue/facility.
4. Does the proposed event(s) 1) occur in a non-U.S. location, e.g., not one of the 50
states, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory; and 2) does not occur in China or a
DC? If so, ensure the proposal explains why it is non-U.S., e.g., the nature of the
science is multi-national; it is not the U.S.’s turn.
5. Does the proposal need a data management plan and/or likely will generate a
patent? See Section 4.3.3 "Technology and Data".
6. Is the proposal a request for of multi-year infrastructure funding for sustaining
research, content platforms, communities of practice, or other networks/professional
societies, and/or for continuing or one-time only fellowships?
Please note, that compliance with this TWSC checklist does not mean that a proposal
will be selected or awarded.
7. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget No dedicated budget; selected proposals will be
for new awards funded by the relevant SMD program.
Number of new awards pending The number of proposals selected will be
adequate proposals of merit dependent on the number and quality of
proposals submitted and on the availability of
funds from the relevant SMD program.
Maximum duration of awards Typically, 1 year, but see Section 4.5
Due date for Notice of Intent to No Notices of Intent are requested for this
propose (NOI) program element.
Due date for proposals Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 PM (Eastern time) on May 12, 2023.
Planning date for start of Typically, no earlier than 6 months after the
investigation proposal submission date.
Page limit for the central 5 (typical) up to 15 (if needed) pp; see also Table
Science/Technical/Management 1 in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the
section of proposal NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
Relevance See Section 3. Proposals that are relevant to this
program element are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
General information and overview
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
of this solicitation

F.2-18
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Funding Points of Contact:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list
Coordinating point of contact
concerning this program
See ROSES-2022 F.1 the Cross Division
Research Program Overview, and Section IV and
Table 1 of the ROSES-2022.
See NSPIRES Online Help, the most current
NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-TWSC
Mary F. Sladek
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (202) 358-0861
Email: mary.f.sladek@nasa.gov
F.2-19
F.3 EXOPLANETS RESEARCH PROGRAM
NOTICE: Corrected March 23, 2022. Section 4 has been corrected to
replace the reference to NOI with Step-1 proposal. Sections 3.4 and 3.5
have been clarified to specify that references to "the proposal" were
to the Step-2 proposal. New text is in bold and deleted text is struck
through. The proposal due dates are unchanged: Step-1 proposals are
due March 31, 2022, and Step-2 proposals are due May 26, 2022.
Corrected February 25, 2022. Table F.3-1 in Section 3.4 has been
corrected to indicate that the anonymized DMP must be included in
the 15-page S/T/M portion of the proposal, not a separate 2-page
section. New text is in bold and deleted text is struck through.
Proposals to this program continue to be taken by a two-step process
in which the Notice of Intent is replaced by a required Step-1 proposal
submitted by an organization Authorized Organizational
Representative. See Section 3 for details.
Step-2 proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a
dual-anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared
according to the guidelines in Section 3.4 and in the associated
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under other
documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
1. Scope of Program
The Exoplanets Research Program (XRP) element solicits basic research proposals to
conduct scientific investigations that significantly improve our understanding of
exoplanets and exoplanet formation. This program element is cross-divisional and
jointly managed by four of the Divisions within NASA’s Science Mission Directorate:
Astrophysics, Planetary Science, Heliophysics, and Earth Science. Proposed
investigations that combine multiple scientific disciplines or cross traditional Divisional
science boundaries, in particular by including topics or analysis techniques from the
Heliophysics and/or Earth Science disciplines, are highly encouraged.
Proposed XRP investigations should involve one or more of the following:
● Detection of exoplanets and/or confirmation of exoplanet candidates;
● Characterization of exoplanets and exoplanetary systems (including statistical
and demographic studies);
● Studies of exoplanet interactions with their host stars and/or of host star
properties that directly impact our understanding of exoplanetary systems;
● Exploration of the chemical and physical processes of exoplanets (including the
state and evolution of their surfaces, interiors, and/or atmospheres);
● Improvements to our understanding of the formation and evolution of exoplanets
and exoplanetary systems, including studies of protoplanetary/debris disks.
XRP supports observational, laboratory, modeling, and theoretical studies. Proposed
investigations should involve the collection and analysis of new data, analysis of
archival data, collection and interpretation of laboratory data, and/or development of an
observationally testable prediction or theory. Proposals must also clearly describe how

F.3-1
results will facilitate the interpretation of data from NASA space missions and/or lead to
predictions that can be tested with NASA space mission observations.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 Scope Clarifications
The Astrophysics Division has consolidated its support for exoplanet science
investigations under XRP. Consequently, all theoretical, computational, and archival
investigations that are focused on the formation, evolution, detection, or characterization
of protoplanetary or debris disks, exoplanets, exoplanetary systems, or the
demographics of the exoplanet population are within the scope of XRP.
XRP supports observations made at any ground-based facility, public or private,
including those supported by NASA. If future observations are proposed, the facility and
all instrumentation specific to the investigation must be in scientific operation at the time
of proposal submission, and the proposal must provide evidence of current instrument
performance and data quality. Additionally, the proposal must state whether the
observing time to support the proposed investigation has been awarded, and provide
any documentation needed to support this statement.
The following are also within scope of XRP, but only if the proposal convincingly
demonstrates that the focus of the investigation is the advancement of exoplanet
science:
• Observational proposals focused on detecting, validating, or characterizing
potentially habitable planets;
• Observational proposals focused on supporting the detection of biosignatures
using current or future space telescopes;
• Observational, archival, theoretical, and modeling proposals focused on the
detection of technosignatures;
• Observational, archival, theoretical, and modeling proposals focused on stellar
objects or brown dwarfs;
• Studies that use comparisons to bodies within our Solar System;
• Software/algorithm development proposals for data analysis;
• Cross-disciplinary proposals that utilize Heliophysics and/or Earth science
concepts, instruments, laboratory facilities, models, and/or other techniques;
• Archival investigations using data from NASA astrophysics missions.
For programs that may have potential scope issues, consultation with an XRP Program
Officer before the Step-1 proposal submission deadline is highly encouraged.
2.2 Exclusions
XRP is intended to encompass the majority of research investigations where exoplanets
are the primary focus. However, some overlap with other ROSES program elements
remains, resulting in the following exclusions:
● Studies focused on understanding the formation of our own Solar System (see
instead ROSES-22 program element C.2 Emerging Worlds);
● Theoretical or laboratory investigations focused on defining, understanding, or
characterizing biosignatures (see instead C.5 Exobiology);

F.3-2
 ● Theoretical or laboratory investigations focused on habitable environments (see
instead F.4 Habitable Worlds);
● Investigations focused on technology development for exoplanet space missions
or suborbital-class experiments that advance exoplanet science (see instead D.3
Astrophysics Research and Analysis Program).
For proposals that may fall within these exclusion areas, consultation with an XRP
Program Officer before the Step-1 deadline is highly encouraged in order to identify the
most appropriate program element for submission.
Additionally, the following are excluded from XRP:
● Investigations containing major work elements for collecting and/or analyzing
data from a single current or future Great Observatory that has a General
Observer or Archival Research program (Hubble, Chandra, Fermi, Webb). Use of
archival data from these missions is compliant only when analyzed in conjunction
with data from one or more other NASA space astrophysics missions.
● Investigations containing major work elements for collecting data from any NASA
mission that has a General Investigator program (e.g., TESS). Such
investigations should respond directly to the General Investigator programs of the
relevant missions.
● Investigations with the primary objective of maintaining and/or operating
observing facilities, or installing, developing, commissioning, and/or determining
the integrated performance of instrumentation.
● Proposals that are essentially identical to another proposal submitted to a
different but concurrent program element within ROSES.
As a general guideline, proposed investigations may include a small (<25%) fraction of
the effort for otherwise-excluded elements, however these must be well justified within
the context of the overall proposal.
2.3 Facilities Available to Proposers
Investigators whose research requires high-performance computing should refer to the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation, Section I(e), "NASA-provided High-End Computing
Resources" under "Announcement Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program.
This section describes the opportunity for successful proposers to XRP to apply for
computing time on either of two NASA computing facilities at the Goddard Space Flight
Center’s Computational and Information Sciences and Technology Office or at the
Ames Research Center’s Advanced Supercomputing Division.
2.4 Early Career Programs
XRP will participate in the Planetary Science Division's Early Career Award (ECA; see
C.18 for details), with the aim of supporting the research and professional development
of outstanding early-career scientists in areas relevant to the Planetary Science
Division. Potential ECA proposers should carefully read C.18 for guidelines and
restrictions on such proposals.

F.3-3
2.5 Duration of Awards
Most XRP proposals are anticipated to seek three years of funding. Proposals for fewer
than three years are encouraged for projects that can be completed on shorter
timescales. Four-year proposals are allowed but must clearly justify the need for the
longer duration; this justification will be considered as part of the evaluation process.
2.6 Selecting Officials
Selections for XRP will be jointly made by the appointed Selection Officials of all
participating Divisions of the Science Mission Directorate.
2.7 Research Coordination Networks
PIs of proposals selected for funding from XRP are eligible to become members of the
Steering Committees of the Research Coordination Networks (RCNs) provided that the
proposed investigation is aligned with the goals of a currently active RCN. For more
information, see https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/astrobiology-program-faqs/.
Relevance to an RCN is not an evaluation criterion for the proposals submitted to this
program element, and eligibility for participation in an RCN does not indicate that
additional research funding will be provided.
3. Proposal Preparation, Submission, and Evaluation
3.1 Step-1 Proposal
XRP will use a two-step proposal submission process (see Section IV.(b)vii of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation). Step-1 proposals are required and must be submitted
electronically by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) of the proposing
organization; only proposers who submit Step-1 proposals will be eligible to submit
Step-2 proposals. Budgets are not required for Step-1 proposals. Submission of a Step-
1 proposal does not obligate a proposer to submit a Step-2 (full) proposal.
Proposers should refer to the “Instructions for Submitting a Step-1 Proposal” under
“Other Documents” on the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and
Evaluation System (NSPIRES) web page for this program. The Step-1 proposal is
entered directly into a text field on the NSPIRES web interface and is restricted to 4,000
characters; no attachments are required or permitted. The Step-1 proposal should
include the PI and team members, a description of the science goals and objectives to
be addressed by the proposal, a brief description of the methodology to be used to
address the science goals and objectives, and the relevance of the proposed research
to this call. The Step-1 proposal may be used to determine whether the proposal was
submitted to the correct program element, but no further evaluation is performed for
Step-1 proposals. NSPIRES will notify proposers whether their Step-1 proposal is
encouraged, at which point they will be able to create a Step-2 proposal via NSPIRES.
3.2 Step-2 (Full) Proposal
Proposers should refer to the document entitled “How to submit a Step-2 proposal”
under “Other Documents” on the NSPIRES page for this program. Full (Step-2)
proposals must broadly contain the same scientific goals proposed in the Step-1
proposal. Between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals, the PI role may be reassigned only
to listed Co-Is at the proposing organization and to add funded investigators proposers

F.3-4
must inform the point(s) of contact identified in the summary table of key information
and cc sara@nasa.gov at least two weeks in advance of the Step-2 proposal due date.
The Step-2 proposals are due by the date given in Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in Section IV(b)ii of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Violation
of these rules is sufficient grounds to reject a proposal without review.
3.3 Evaluation
All proposals will be evaluated for Intrinsic Merit, Relevance, and Cost Reasonableness,
as specified in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
XRP proposals will be evaluated, in part, on their significance to and impact on the
advancement of exoplanetary science. Proposals that have a near-term impact (within 5
years) are particularly encouraged.
XRP proposals will be evaluated, in part, on how the proposed work would support past
and current NASA missions and/or how it would facilitate the formulation and
development of future NASA missions and strategic exoplanet programs. Proposers are
encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Exoplanet Program’s Science
Development Plan and Science Gap List (which can be downloaded from
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/exep/science-overview). However, the identification of novel
science investigations beyond these plans and gaps is highly encouraged.
3.4 Dual-Anonymous Peer Review [Clarified March 23, 2022]
Step-2 Proposals submitted to XRP will be evaluated using the Dual-Anonymous Peer
Review (DAPR) process, in which not only are proposers unaware of the identities of
the members of the review panel, but also the reviewers are not told the identities of the
proposers until after the evaluation of Intrinsic Merit. The overarching objective of DAPR
is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the scientific merit of a proposal.
Proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element,
which explain how to properly prepare a proposal for DAPR; violation of DAPR
requirements is sufficient grounds to reject a proposal without review. In addition to
anonymizing their Step-2 proposals, proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and
Resources - Not Anonymized" (E&R) document, which contains all the personally (and
organizationally) identifying information. This E&R document will be provided to the
review panel after the scientific evaluation is finalized for all proposals and will be used
to assess whether the qualifications and capabilities of the team are sufficient to
successfully execute the proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized Step-2 proposals, reproduced from
the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed in the table below. For
additional details regarding DAPR, please visit the Science Mission Directorate's DAPR
page: https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review.

F.3-5
 Table F.3-1 Key Requirements for Anonymized Proposals
Item Requirement [Corrected February 25, 2022]
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan. See Section 3.5 regarding the DMP.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan. See Section 3.5.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.

F.3-6
 Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.

3.5 Data Management Plan [Clarified March 23, 2022]

Proposals submitted to XRP must include a Data Management Plan (DMP). The DMP
must be located within the 15-page Scientific/Technical/Management section of the
Step-2 proposal, and the quality of the DMP will be evaluated as part of Intrinsic Merit.
For additional information on the required components of a DMP, please visit the
Science Mission Directorate's DMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page:
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/dmp-faq-roses
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~ $4.0 M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~ 25
adequate proposals of Intrinsic Merit
Maximum duration of awards 3 years; 4 years if well-justified (see Section
2.5)
Due date for NOIs Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for full Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of investigation January 1, 2023
Page limit for the central 15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES.
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the questions and
goals of the Science Mission Directorate as
described in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program
are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
General requirements for content of See Table 1 and Section IV of the ROSES
proposals Summary of Solicitation, and Section 3 of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers.

F.3-7
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposals
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program, all of whom share this email
address: hq-xrp@mail.nasa.gov and
the following postal address:
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-XRP
Megan Ansdell, Planetary Science Division
Hannah Jang-Condell, Astrophysics Division
Richard Eckman, Earth Science Division
Galen Fowler, Heliophysics Division
F.3-8
F.4 HABITABLE WORLDS
NOTICE: Amended May 13, 2022. The due date for Step-2 proposals
has been changed to February 3, 2023. The Step-1 due date remains
November 8, 2022.
Proposals to this program continue to be taken by a two-step process
in which the Notice of Intent is replaced by a required Step-1 proposal
submitted by an organization Authorized Organizational
Representative. See Section 3 for details.
Step-2 proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a
dual-anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared
according to the guidelines in Section 3.3 and in the associated
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document under other
documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element.
A separate Relevance Statement is required for proposals to this
program element, see Section 2.1 for details.
1. Scope of Program
The goal of the Habitable Worlds program is to use knowledge of the history of the
Earth and the life upon it as a guide for determining the processes and conditions that
create and maintain habitable environments (including transient environments) and to
search for ancient and contemporary habitable environments and explore the possibility
of extant life beyond the Earth.
NASA's Habitable Worlds Program includes elements of the Astrobiology Program, the
Mars Exploration Program, the Outer Planets Program, the Planetary Protection
Research Program (all in the Planetary Science Division) and Living With a Star in
Heliophysics. A common goal of these programs is to identify the characteristics and the
distribution of potentially habitable environments in the Solar System and beyond. This
research is conducted in the context of NASA’s ongoing exploration of our stellar
neighborhood and the identification of biosignatures for in situ and remote sensing
applications. For further information on the science scope of Astrobiology, please refer
to the Astrobiology roadmap, which can be found on the Astrobiology web page at
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/about/astrobiology-strategy/. Information on the
habitability-related goals of the Mars Exploration Program can be found in the "Mars
Science Goals, Objectives, Investigations and Priorities: 2020" document, available on
the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group web page at
https://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports.cfm. For the Outer Planets Program, refer to the
document "Scientific Goals for Exploration of the Outer Solar System," most recently
updated in 2019 and found on the Outer Planets Assessment Group web site
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag).
Theoretical and experimental studies will be considered, as well as quantitative
terrestrial field experiments that improve scientific understanding of how in situ
measurements at analog sites can or will improve our understanding of the potential for
the environment to support life. Research areas include, but are not limited to, the
presence of water and/or exotic solvents, sources of energy for life, presence of

F.4-1
organics and their reactivity, and water body physics and chemistry as they pertain to
habitability and habitability over time, as well as space weather signatures that may be
indicative of impacts to planetary habitability. The target bodies for this program element
include, but are not limited to:
• Mars
- the astrobiological potential of past or present environments on or in the
Martian surface or subsurface.
• Icy Worlds - the astrobiological potential of icy worlds in the outer Solar System,
including Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus, and Titan.
• Habitable Exoplanets and/or their moons - A potentially habitable exoplanet implies
a planet with conditions roughly comparable to those of Earth (i.e., an Earth
analog) and thus potentially favorable to the presence of life.
• Built or human activity induced environments (e.g. spacecraft assembly facilities or
off-nominal impact of a spacecraft).
Proposals are sought for new projects within the scope of the Habitable Worlds
Program. Proposals submitted in response to this Program Element should be for new
work that is not currently supported by the program or for investigations that would
extend to their next logical phase those tasks that have been funded in the Astrobiology
Research Program, Mars Exploration Program, Living with a Star, Core Research
Programs (such as Exoplanet Research), and Outer Planets (or other) programs.
2. Programmatic Information
The Habitable Worlds element will be administered primarily by the Planetary Science
Division. As such, this program element is governed by information contained in
program element C.1. However, highly-rated proposals of strong programmatic
relevance to the Heliophysics Division will be considered for funding by the Heliophysics
Division.
2.1 Relevance Statement Requirement
Step-2 Proposals to this program element must specifically address the relevance of the
proposed work to this program element. This must be placed in a special section, not to
exceed one page in length, immediately following the Data Management Plan. This
section is outside of the 15-page Scientific/Technical/Management Section. This
requirement supersedes the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation, and the omission of this section is sufficient reason for a proposal to be
returned without review.
The relevance discussion must explicitly refer to this program element and the section
to which the proposal is responsive. If the proposed work is close in scope to research
covered by any other program element, this discussion must also justify why it is more
relevant to this program element than that other program element. This discussion may
not be used to address the proposal’s intrinsic merit, budget justification, or any other
factor that remains in the 15-page main body, or any other section, of the proposal. This
section must be anonymized.

F.4-2
2.2 Program Exclusions
Proposals focused on the formation of complex organic molecules in space and their
delivery to planetary surfaces in the Solar System should be submitted to C.5
Exobiology. Proposals focused on the formation and stability of habitable planets should
be submitted to either C.2 Emerging Worlds or F.3 Exoplanet Research Program,
depending on the nature of the study. Proposals focused on the survivability of
terrestrial microbes in non-Earth environments should be submitted to C.15, the
Planetary Protection Research Program. Refer to those program elements for more
information.
Biosignature studies of samples from sites thought to be analogs of other planetary
environments that might potentially harbor life should be directed to C.5 Exobiology.
Models of environments in which organic chemical synthesis could occur and the forms
in which prebiotic organic matter has been preserved in planetary materials should be
directed to C.5 Exobiology. Work to understand the phylogeny, physiology, and
adaptations of extant terrestrial organisms to extreme environments should be directed
to C.5 Exobiology.
Field-based investigations focused on exploring the relevant environments on Earth in
order to develop a sound technical and scientific basis to conduct planetary research on
other Solar System bodies should be directed to C.14 PSTAR (Planetary Science and
Technology from Analog Research) program.
Through its data analysis programs, C.7 New Frontiers Data Analysis Program
(NFDAP), C.8 Lunar Data Analysis Program (LDAP), C.9 Mars Data Analysis Program
(MDAP), C.10 Cassini Data Analysis Program (CDAP), and C.11 Discovery Data
Analysis Program (DDAP), the Planetary Science Division solicits proposals for work
that are primarily analysis of planetary mission data. This program element does not
accept proposals that are eligible for submission to one of those data analysis
programs. If a proposal is not appropriate for one of the data-analysis programs, but
does fit within the bounds of this program, then it should be submitted to this program.
2.3 Pilot Studies
Proposals for one to two-year pilot studies to demonstrate or develop a new technique
or a new application of an established technique will be considered. Such proposals
may also include the demonstration of a technique new to the proposer, but not new to
the field in general.
2.4 Instrumentation: Purchase, Construction, or Upgrade
Proposers to Habitable Worlds are eligible to request funds for major equipment under
the Planetary Science Enabling Facilities (PSEF) program. See program element C.17
for information on how to append a PSEF request to a regular Habitable Worlds
research proposal or submit a stand-alone PSEF proposal to supplement an existing
Habitable Worlds award.
2.5 Development of Instruments
This program element does not request proposals for the development of advanced
instrument concepts and technologies as precursors to astrobiology flight instruments.

F.4-3
Such proposals may be submitted to C.12 Planetary Instrument Concepts for the
Advancement of Solar System Observations (PICASSO) Program, for technology
readiness levels (TRLs) 1-3 or C.13 Maturation of Instruments for Solar System
Exploration (MatISSE) Program for TRLs 4-6. Proposals for science-driven field
campaigns that are expected to produce new science results, as well as new
operational or technological capabilities, should be submitted to the C.14 Planetary
Science and Technology Analogs Research (PSTAR) program.
2.6 Astrobiology Program Research Coordination Networks
The NASA Astrobiology program uses Research Coordination Networks (RCN) as a
virtual collaboration structure to help support groups of investigators to communicate
and coordinate their research across disciplinary, organizational, divisional, and
geographic boundaries. Habitable Worlds solicits proposals aimed at habitability of any
planet, including those within the Solar System and beyond and PIs of proposals
selected for funding from this program element that cover a research topic related to the
habitability can opt to join a relevant RCN. For more information see
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/about/faq/what-is-rcn/.
2.6.1 Nexus of Exoplanet System Science (NExSS)
PIs of proposals selected for funding from this program element that cover a research
topic related to the habitability of, or search for life on, exoplanets can join the Nexus of
Exoplanet System Science (NExSS). Relevance to NExSS is not an evaluation criterion
for proposals to this program element. Eligibility for participation in NExSS does not
indicate that additional funding will be provided; NExSS is a research coordination
network that brings together scientists from many disciplines that study planets beyond
our Solar System. For more information see https://nexss.info/.
2.6.2 Network for Ocean Worlds (NOW)
PIs of proposals selected for funding from this program element that cover a research
topic related to the habitability of ocean worlds can join the Network for Ocean Worlds
(NOW). Relevance to NOW is not an evaluation criterion for proposals to this program
element. Eligibility for participation in NOW does not indicate that additional funding will
be provided; NOW is a research coordination network that brings together scientists
from many disciplines that study ocean worlds across their interiors, oceans, and
cryospheres. For more information see https://oceanworlds.space/.
2.7 Duration and Size of Awards
NASA anticipates that most proposals will seek three years of funding. Proposals for
less than three years are encouraged for projects that can be completed on shorter
timescales. In rare cases, funding for the proposed fourth year may be provided, if the
need for the longer duration is sufficiently well justified. The appropriateness of the
proposed funding period will be reviewed, and adjustments may be requested.
Programmatic balance may limit the opportunities for funding in some areas.
The average size of awards resulting from Step-2 proposals submitted to Habitable
Worlds has been ~$175-185K per year per award, but with a wide range, depending on
the nature of the work proposed. Proposers are encouraged to request what they
actually need to conduct the research proposed.
F.4-4
2.8 Planetary Science Early Career Award
Details of the new Planetary Science Early Career Award (ECA) program are given in
program element C.18. The aim of this program is to support research and professional
development of outstanding early-career scientists, and to help stimulate research
careers in areas supported by the Planetary Sciences Division. This program is an
ECA-participating ROSES program element. Proposals from eligible PIs, or Science PIs
if applicable, selected from this program in 2022 may become the 'parent award' for
future ECA proposals (i.e., in 2023 or later).
2.9 Antarctica
The Habitable Worlds Program is not accepting proposals for work in Antarctica.
2.10 Resources: Information, Data, and Facilities
For proposals that contain mission data analysis, planetary spacecraft mission data to
be used in proposed investigations must be available in the Planetary Data System
(PDS) or equivalent publicly accessible archive at least 30 days prior to the Step-2
proposal due date. Spacecraft data that have not been obtained yet (i.e., future mission
data) or those that have not been accepted for distribution in approved archives are not
eligible for use in investigations. Regardless of the archive(s) used, if the data to be
analyzed have issues that might represent an obstacle to analysis, the proposers must
demonstrate clearly and satisfactorily how such potential difficulties will be overcome.
Investigators funded by spacecraft missions who wish to apply must demonstrate
clearly how the proposed research does not overlap and is not redundant with data
analysis, duties, or responsibilities already funded by their respective mission(s). This
information may be included "Expertise and Resources- Not Anonymized" document, if
applicable. Please see C.1, The Planetary Science Division Research Program
Overview, for more information.
2.10.1 Facilities and Data Sources Available to Proposers
Proposers are advised to read C.1 Planetary Science Division Research Program
Overview for information on facilities and data sources that are available to supported
investigators. If their use is anticipated, this must be discussed and justified in the
submitted proposals in the separate "Expertise and Resources- Not Anonymized"
document, as outlined in the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" instructions (see
Section 3.3). Also note that, per the directions in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, a
letter of support may be required from any facility required for the proposed effort. This
letter should also be included in "Expertise and Resources- Not Anonymized"
document, if applicable.
2.10.2 Geologic Maps
Proposers who plan investigations involving geologic mapping should consult program
element C.1, Section 3.8, for guidance on submission and requirements for publication
of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps. The scientific goal of such a geologic map
product should be clearly explained and justified.

F.4-5
2.11 NASA Postdoctoral Program Fellows
Grantees in the program are eligible to serve as mentors to Astrobiology NASA
Postdoctoral Program (NPP) Fellows. The tenure of a Fellow must begin one year
before the end of the award but may extend beyond it. Proposals from potential Fellows
must be submitted through the standard NPP process. This Program expects to select
no more than two Fellows this year.
2.12 Data Management Plans
Proposals submitted to this program element must include a Data Management Plan
(DMP, see program element C.1, Section 3.6). This must be placed in a special section,
not to exceed two pages in length, immediately following the References and Citations
section for the Scientific/Technical/Management portion of the proposal. This section of
the proposal must be anonymized. In cases where a letter of support from the Planetary
Data System is required, that letter may be included in the separate "Expertise and
Background" document as outlined in the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
instructions (see Section 3.3).
2.13 Fieldwork
Proposals that involve fieldwork must include in the "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document (see below) a statement describing:
• How you will respect others' use of the field site by mitigating or attenuating
impact on the environment e.g., sensitive ecosystems or historic properties of
religious, cultural, or scientific significance,
• The acquisition of relevant permits and any special steps to adhere to restrictions
or guidelines for the site, and
• A plan for a policy, code of conduct, or ground rules to help create an
environment that is free of harassment and discrimination.
3. The Two-Step Submission Process
To facilitate the early recruitment of a conflict-free review panel and to ensure proposals
are submitted to the appropriate program, this program uses a two-step proposal
submission process (see Section IV. (b) vii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation).
A Step-1 proposal is required and must be submitted electronically by the Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR). No budget is required. Only proposers who
submit a Step-1 proposal are eligible to submit a Step-2 proposal. Full (Step-2)
proposals must broadly contain the same scientific goals proposed in the Step-1
proposal. The Principal Investigator (PI) cannot be adjusted and proposers that want to
add funded investigators between the Step-1 and Step-2 proposals must inform the
point(s) of contact below and cc sara@nasa.gov at least two weeks in advance of the
Step-2 due date. Submission of the Step-1 proposal does not obligate the proposer to
submit a Step-2 (full) proposal later.
3.1 Step-1 Proposal
Proposers should refer to the "Instructions for Submitting a Step-1 Proposal" under
"Other Documents" on the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and
Evaluation System (NSPIRES) page for this program. The Scientific-Technical-
F.4-6
Management section of the Step-1 proposal is restricted to the 4000-character Proposal
Summary text box on the NSPIRES web interface cover pages and should include a
description of the science goals and objectives to be addressed by the proposal, a brief
description of the methodology to be used to address the science goals and objectives,
and the relevance of the proposed research to this call. The Step-1 proposal may be
used to determine whether the proposal has been submitted to the appropriate program
element. No evaluation of intrinsic merit will be performed on Step-1 proposals.
NSPIRES will notify proposers whether their Step-1proposal has been designated as
encouraged or not, at which point they will be able to create Step-2 proposals.
3.2 Step-2 Proposal
All proposals submitted to ROSES must strictly conform to the formatting rules in
Section IV of this announcement and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Those that
violate the rules may be rejected without review. In previous years, problems with the
formatting of the Scientific/Technical/Management section proposals have been noted.
Please pay particular attention to:
• Length: 15 pages
• Margins: 1 inch on all sides, with a standard page size of 8.5 × 11 inches.
• Font: The NASA Guidebook for Proposers requires that proposers use a 12-point
or larger font. The selected font must meet the requirement of having, on
average, no more than 15 characters per inch (e.g., Times New Roman and
Arial). Proposers may not adjust the character spacing or otherwise condense a
font from its default appearance.
• Line spacing: Font and line-spacing settings should produce text that contains no
more than 5.5 lines per inch. Do not adjust line-spacing settings for your selected
font below single-spaced.
• Figure captions: must follow the same font and spacing rules as the main text.
• Figures and tables: for text in figures and tables, font and spacing rules listed
above do not apply, but all text must be judged to be legible to reviewers without
magnification above 100%. Do not place expository text in tables or figures in
order to gain space.
3.3 Instructions for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Step-2 proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous
peer review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the
members on the review panel, but the reviewers are not told the identity of the
proposers until after the evaluation of merit, see below. The overarching objective of
dual-anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the
merit of a proposal.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for

F.4-7
this program element that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-
anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) The
Proposal summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal PDF and the
Relevance Statement that is normally input on the NSPIRES cover pages must be
included in the proposal PDF instead and 2) proposers must upload a separate "Team
Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document, that contains all of the
personally (and organizational) identifying information.
In order to meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be
instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals based on their scientific merit, without
taking into account the proposing team qualifications. As a final check, and only after
the scientific evaluation is finalized for all proposals, the panel will be provided with the
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" documents. The panel will assess the
qualifications of the team in order to allow the reviewers to assess the team capabilities
required to execute a given proposed science investigation.
Any PSEF request shall be part of the "Expertise and Resources- Not Anonymized"
document, and any contingency plans in the case that the PSEF request is not funded
should be included as part of this document.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals documents, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limits 15 pages. One additional page is allotted for the Proposal
Summary, and two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan.
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of

F.4-8
 facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Data Management Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Plan Two additional pages are allotted for the Data Management
Plan.
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
Anonymized" The document should also discuss any specific resources that
document are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~$1.5M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending 8-10
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards 4 years; shorter-term proposals (1-3 years) are
typical; fourth year must be explicitly and
scientifically justified.
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of 6 months after proposal due date.
investigation
Page limit for the central 15 pages. One additional page each are
Science/Technical/ Management allotted for the Proposal Summary and the
section of proposal Relevance Statement (see Section 2.1), and
two additional pages are allotted for the Data
Management Plan (see Section 2.12).

F.4-9
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Main Point of Contact
Other points of contact, both of
whom share the following postal
address:
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546
This program is relevant to Planetary Science,
and Heliophysics Divisions questions and
goals in the NASA Science Plan. Proposals
that are relevant to this program are, by
definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See C.1 Planetary Science Research Program
Overview, F.1 The Cross Division Research
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Section IV(b) of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, and
Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-HW
Rebecca McCauley Rench
Planetary Science Division
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546
Telephone: (202) 213-7815
Email: rebecca.l.mccauleyrench@nasa.gov
Delia Santiago-Materese
(regarding dual-anonymous peer review)
Planetary Science Division
Telephone: (202) 358-4525
Email: delia.santiago-materese@nasa.gov
Galen Fowler
Heliophysics Division
Telephone: (202) 358-0039
Email: galen.fowler@nasa.gov
F.4-10
F.5 FUTURE INVESTIGATORS IN NASA EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
NOTICE: Amended February 14, 2023. This amendment delays the due
date for FINESST proposals. Proposals are due February 21, 2023.
Amended February 3, 2023. This amendment delays the due date for
FINESST proposals. Proposals are due February 14, 2023. Also, in
Section 3 a reference to NASA civil servants has been clarified to
address legal concerns. New text is in bold and deleted text is struck
through.
NOTICE: Amended November 28, 2022. This Amendment releases the
final text for this program that solicits graduate student research,
which had been listed as "TBD". Notices of Intent may not be
submitted. Proposals are due February 14, 2023 February 7, 2023. An
optional, pre-proposal teleconference will occur on January 13, 2023,
at 2 PM eastern time, see Section 12.8. Although structured as
Question and Answers (Q&A), Sections 12 & 13 will be legally binding
on awardees. The short URL for the NSPIRES page for this program
element is https://go.nasa.gov/FINESST22.
1. Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
The Future Investigators in NASA Earth and Space Science and Technology
(FINESST) is a program element in Research Opportunities in Space and Earth
Sciences (ROSES)-2022. Through FINESST, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD)
solicits proposals from accredited U.S. universities and other eligible organizations for
graduate student-designed and performed research projects that contribute to SMD's
science, technology, and exploration goals. The Future Investigator (FI) i.e., the student
participant, shall have the primary initiative to define the proposed FINESST research
project and must be the primary author, with input or supervision from the proposal's
Principal Investigator (PI), as appropriate.
The proposal must present a well-defined research problem/activity and a justification of
its scientific significance to NASA, as well as a detailed approach for its
solution/conduct. Proposals should explain how the research is relevant to the particular
SMD division that will review the proposal. The proposal should reference Section 2
below regarding suitable research topic(s) solicited by a participating Division: Earth
Science, Planetary Science, Astrophysics, Heliophysics, and Biological and Physical
Sciences. Those who have never proposed to ROSES before may refer to the
introductory note at the start of Section 12: Ancillary information for proposers.
Information on NASA's Strategic Goals and Objectives and SMD’s high-level objectives
is in the NASA 2022 Strategic Plan. Detailed plans/objectives that correspond to four of
the five science divisions of SMD (Heliophysics, Earth Science, Planetary Science, and
Astrophysics) appear in Chapter 4 of the 2014 NASA Science Plan. All FINESST
proposals must address its relevance to at least one participating SMD division (see
Section 4.1.1). The NASA Science Strategy or Plan for the Science Mission Directorate
entitled Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence articulates SMD's
principles.

F.5-1
FINESST awards are research grants and are similar to a fixed amount award as
described in 2 CFR §200.1 "Definitions". See also Section 6, Award Information and
Restrictions, and Section 13, Ancillary information for awardees, at the end of this
document.
2. Scope of Program: Division Research Overviews
This section presents a partial overview of the research funded by SMD's science
divisions that accept FINESST proposals. Proposers may refer to the list of research
program element(s) solicited by a particular division(s) in Table 3 of this year's ROSES
solicitation to get an indication of topics that are covered by each division. This list is not
exhaustive since it changes from year to year. If a particular program element for SMD’s
FINESST participating divisions is listed as "not solicited this year", TBD, or even
absent, that topic is still in scope for FINESST. Lastly, proposals for research that cross
divisional boundaries (e.g., sun-climate connection, upper/lower atmosphere
connection, comparative planetary atmospheres and/or atmosphere/surface
interactions, Earth as an analogue for exoplanets, common physical/chemical data
and/or processes in support of modeling or observations) will be jointly considered by
the relevant divisions.
2.1 Earth Science Research Program
The overarching goal of NASA's Earth Science program is to develop a scientific
understanding of Earth as a system. NASA's Earth Science Research Program supports
research activities that address the Earth system and seek to characterize its properties
on a broad range of spatial and temporal scales, to understand the naturally occurring
and human-induced processes that drive the Earth system, and to improve our
capability for predicting its future evolution. The focus of the Earth Science Research
Program is the use of space-based measurements to provide information not available
by other means.
The Earth Science Research Program contributes to NASA’s mission, in particular,
Strategic Objective 1.1: "Understand the Earth system and its climate" (from the NASA
2022 Strategic Plan). This strategic objective involves the following key goals:
• Advance the understanding of changes in the Earth's radiation balance, air quality,
and the ozone layer that result from changes in atmospheric composition;
• Improve the capability to predict weather and extreme weather events;
• Detect and predict changes in Earth’s ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles,
including land cover, biodiversity, and the global carbon cycle;
• Enable better assessment and management of water quality and quantity to
accurately predict how the global water cycle evolves in response to climate
change;
• Improve the ability to predict climate changes by better understanding the roles
and interactions of the oceans, atmosphere, land, and ice in the climate system;
• Characterize the dynamics of the Earth’s surface and interior, improving the
capability to assess and respond to natural hazards and extreme events; and
• Further the use of Earth system science research to inform decisions and provide
benefits to society.

F.5-2
Earth Science proposers should review ROSES-2022 A.1 Earth Science Research
Overview for additional details. The Earth Science Division (ESD) welcomes FINESST
proposals that relate to the following sections of A.1: Research and Analysis (Section
2), Applied Sciences (Section 3), Technology (Section 4), and Data Systems (Section
5).
FINESST Earth science proposals must demonstrate a clear link to past, present, or
future NASA Earth science data and/or models in the Science/Technical/Management
section of their proposal. This link could include, but is not limited to: NASA satellite
remote sensing data (including joint missions of NASA and its interagency and
international partners), remote sensing data that pertains to future NASA observing
systems, remote sensing and in situ data from NASA or NASA-affiliated suborbital
activities such as airborne campaigns and surface-based networks, data acquired via
NASA’s Commercial SmallSat Data Acquisition (CSDA) Program (which is available at
no cost to NASA-funded researchers), NASA models that incorporate satellite and/or
suborbital data, and technology projects related to current and future NASA observing
systems. Proposals that anticipate and/or allow for enhanced scientific return from the
Earth System Observatory are welcome. Proposals that incorporate non-NASA data,
including international satellite data, commercial satellite data, and social science data
are also welcome.
Any data proposed to be analyzed from any source, including NASA and other satellite
data, ancillary data, and data from commercial sources, must use publicly available
data, in the sense that these data are openly accessible. Commercial data need not be
free, but it must be purchasable by all potential investigators. Wherever possible,
proposals should reflect the principles of Open Science as described on the Earthdata
website.
2.2 Heliophysics Research Program
Heliophysics proposers must review ROSES-2022 B.1 Heliophysics Research Program
Overview for complete information.
In pursuit of the part of the NASA Strategic Objective related to Heliophysics, i.e., to
understand the Sun, Earth, Solar System, and Universe, and with guidance from the
National Research Council’s most recent decadal survey, Solar and Space Physics, A
Science for a Technological Society (download free PDF), key objectives are:
● Explore and characterize the physical processes in the space environment from
the Sun to the heliopause and throughout the universe
● Advance our understanding of the Sun’s activity, and the connections between
solar variability and Earth and planetary space environments, the outer reaches
of our solar system, and the interstellar medium
● Develop the knowledge and capability to detect and predict extreme conditions in
space to protect life and society and to safeguard human and robotic explorers
beyond Earth.
The research program supports theory, modeling, and data analysis utilizing remote
sensing and in situ measurements. The Heliophysics Research Program supports
investigations in all research regimes of Heliophysics: Sun, heliosphere,
magnetosphere, ionosphere, and upper atmosphere. It supports investigations focused

F.5-3
on processes that create space weather events and investigations to enable a capability
for predicting future space weather events. The research program also supports
investigations that span the regimes and address a systems approach – emphasizing
the understanding of fundamental processes and interconnections across the traditional
science disciplines on a broad range of spatial and temporal scales.
For further information, consult Our Dynamic Space Environment: Heliophysics Science
and Technology Roadmap for 2014-2033 (download PDF).
2.3 Planetary Science Research Program
Planetary Science proposers must review ROSES-2022 C.1 Planetary Science
Research Program Overview for complete information.
The Planetary Science Research Program, managed by the Planetary Science Division,
supports investigations to address the broad strategic objective to "Advance scientific
knowledge of the origin and history of the solar system, the potential for life elsewhere,
and the hazards and resources present as humans explore space" as described in
NASA’s Science Vision.
Proposals that are relevant to the Planetary Science Division (PSD) must demonstrate
the relevance of the proposed work to at least one or more of the following:
• the core programs solicited by PSD (Appendix C; C.2 through C.11 and C.16)
• the cross-divisional programs (F.3 Exoplanets Research Program or F.4
Habitable Worlds)
• the C.12 Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar System
Observations (PICASSO); proposals relevant to other technology programs are
not solicited at this time. In addition, proposals relevant to C.12 must
demonstrate must address specific scientific objectives of likely future planetary
science missions.
Proposals that do not demonstrate relevance to one or more of the listed programs shall
be returned without review.
The Planetary Science Research Program invites proposals to address the themes from
the most recent planetary decadal survey and the associated priority questions.
2.4 Astrophysics Research Program
Astrophysics proposers must review the ROSES-2022 D.1 Astrophysics Research
Program Overview for complete information.
The Astrophysics Research Program, managed by the Astrophysics Division, has the
strategic objective to discover how the universe works, explore how it began and
evolved, and search for life on planets around other stars. The science goals that shape
efforts toward fulfilling these objectives are:
● Probe the origin and destiny of our universe, including the nature of black holes,
dark energy, dark matter, and gravity.
● Explore the origin and evolution of the galaxies, stars and planets that make up
our universe.
● Discover and study planets around other stars and explore whether they could
harbor life.

F.5-4
 ● Develop cutting-edge technologies to support NASA Astrophysics research,
including, but not limited to, detectors developments, supporting technologies
(e.g., optics, mirrors, coatings, or gratings), and laboratory Astrophysics
investigations.
Investigations submitted to the Astrophysics research program should explicitly support
past, present, or future NASA astrophysics missions. These investigations may include
theory, simulation, data analysis, laboratory astrophysics, and technology development.
2.5 Biological and Physical Sciences Research Program
Biological and Physical Sciences (BPS) proposers must review ROSES-2022 E.1
Biological and Physical Sciences Research Program Overview for complete information.
BPS seeks advances in the biological and physical sciences through space-based
research, and studies the behavior and adaptation of physical processes, living
organisms, and ecosystems to environments beyond Earth, to enable space exploration
and pioneer scientific discovery.
Space Biology: Space Biology focuses on the effects of short and long duration
spaceflight environment exposure on the biology of animals and plants. In addition, the
effects of microbial systems on plants and animals and the use of cellular systems to
delineate the mechanistic effects of spaceflight on animal and plants systems are of
interest to the program.
NASA Space Biology goals are to:
1. Discover how biological systems respond and adapt to the space environment
2. Develop integrated physiological models for biology in space
3. Identify the underlying mechanisms and networks that govern biological
processes in the space environment
4. Promote open science through the GeneLab Data System and Life Sciences
Data Archive
5. Develop cutting-edge biological technologies to facilitate spaceflight research
6. Develop mechanistic understanding to support human health in space
7. Enable the transfer of knowledge and technology to the understanding of life on
Earth
Please see the Task Book: Biological & Physical Sciences Division and Human
Research Program for present and past funded research projects.
For detailed information on experimental data from past space biology experiments
please see the GeneLab database and Life Sciences Data Archives.
Physical Sciences: Physical Science investigations should focus on theory
development, experimental research, or numerical simulation that contributes to an
interpretive context for past, current, or potential future space experiments in one of
NASA's Physical Sciences Research Program discipline areas: Combustion Science,
Complex Fluids, Fluid Physics, Fundamental Physics or Materials Science.
NASA Physical Sciences Research Program objectives:
• Investigate fundamental laws of physics, often using either microgravity or
interplanetary distances as research tools

F.5-5
 • Provide mechanistic understanding of fundamental reduced gravity fluid physics
processes underlying future space exploration systems such as power
generation and storage, space propulsion, life support systems, and also fire
safety
• Develop and increase understanding of extraction techniques to generate useful
materials, such as metals, glasses, water ice for Lunar infrastructure materials or
consumables from regolith (using a simulant) to advance the Artemis mission of
returning humans to the Moon.
• Support the transfer of knowledge and technology of space-based research to
terrestrial systems to benefit life on Earth such as: smart reactive soft materials,
metamaterials, additive manufacturing and the theoretical understanding of
nonequilibrium phenomena in soft matter, fluid physics and combustion science.
• Developing cutting-edge technologies to facilitate spaceflight research
• Promote open science through data sharing
Please see the Task Book: Biological & Physical Sciences Division and Human
Research Program for present and past funded research projects.
For detailed information on past physical sciences scientific experiments including data
please see the Physical Science Informatics database.
2.6 Science Activation Program
The Science Activation Program (F.6), managed by the Science Engagement &
Partnerships Division, will NOT accept proposals in this cycle. Those interested in future
opportunities can find more information about the Science Activation program at
https://science.nasa.gov/learners. There will be no means to create a FINESST
proposal addressed to Science Activation.
2.7 Additional Information on ROSES Cross -Division Research Programs
For a proposal that possibly spans more than one type of SMD research there may be
an existing funding opportunity designed to support such activities in Appendix F, see
F.1 the Cross Division Research Overview. FINESST primarily serves as a joint notice
of funding opportunity for the six SMD divisions listed 2.1 through 2.6 Most program
elements in Appendix F are eligible to be used as a relevance statement for a FINESST
proposal. However, as a practical matter, proposers must pick one of the 5 participating
FINESST divisions when starting a proposal. Thus, a proposal relevant to a Cross
Division program should submit to the FINESST division most closely aligned with the
specific nature of the proposed research.
3. FINESST Program Eligibility
The Future Investigator (FI) named on the proposal is primarily responsible for writing a
FINESST proposal. The FI should be listed on the proposal in Section VI as a Team
Member (Select "Graduate/Undergraduate Student" as the FI's "Team Member Role").
To be eligible, the FI must meet the following criteria:
● By the proposal due date, the student, known as a future investigator (FI), must
have
○ applied to, or

F.5-6
 ○ been admitted to, or
○ be enrolled as a graduate student, i.e., a Master’s or Ph.D. degree student, or
both, in an Earth- or space sciences-related discipline, at an eligible,
accredited U.S. university.
● Have never previously accepted a FINESST award or
○ If an FI was previously a named student participant on a FINESST or NESSF
grant as originally submitted, the new proposal submitted to this solicitation
may not request support such that the time requested from both proposals
exceeds 36 months. For example, if an FI was awarded a twelve-month
FINESST grant for master’s research, that FI may propose for up to 24
months of FINESST support for Ph.D. research but may not propose 36
months of support.
○ If an FI was supported via a NESSF or FINESST grant where they were not
listed as the original named student on the award – most commonly in the
case where a PI requested that a new student be allowed to use funds
remaining on a FINESST or NESSF grant originally awarded to a different
student – the FI may request a full 36 months provided that they received less
than $50,000 from the previous award.
○ FIs who proposed to, but are not funded by, a prior FINESST or another
solicitation such as the Earth and Space Sciences Fellowship (NESSF) are
eligible.
An FI may be listed on only one FINESST proposal per solicitation year.
The Principal Investigator (PI) normally is the FI's mentor and holistically supports the
FI's research and professional development. However, SMD understands that there are
some situations where the mentor named in the mentoring plan may not be the PI. In
such cases, the mentor should be shown as a Co-I on the NSPIRES cover page.
Unless the submitting institution has a requirement, NASA has no requirement that the
mentor be at the proposing institution. The PI and, if different, the mentor(s) are
determined based on the norms, policies, and practices of the proposing institution.
NASA does not advise on or assist in identifying who should be the PI or mentor. SMD,
however, expects the PI/Mentor to support the FI during proposal development, and if
awarded, during the conduct of the project.
Federal civil servants, contractors, or federal contractor equivalents who are proposing
through an eligible institution may to serve as PIs and FIs shall only use non-NASA
email addresses for the PI or FI to demonstrate qualifying status at the proposing
institution. Reminder to NASA Civil Servants Seeking to Propose as a PI or FI:
Signing a FINESST proposal on behalf of third-party addressed to NASA, would
be a prohibited representation to the U.S. Government under current U.S. legal
code. NASA civil servants/contractors may serve as mentors when they are listed as a
Co-I. [Clarified February 3, 2023]
There is no limit on the number of proposals a PI or organization may submit.
Most commonly, a university will submit the proposal. However, other institutions that
may receive a grant may submit the proposal when they have a relationship with the
accredited U.S. higher education institution at which the FI is or will be enrolled. In such

F.5-7
a case, the budget justification or narrative must provide evidence from the accredited
U.S. education institution of the student’s enrollment/good standing in an eligible degree
program. Note that NASA Centers and other Federal entities that do not grant degrees
are not eligible institutions for FINESST awards.
Participation by non-U.S. organizations is welcome, but on a "no exchange of funds"
basis, see Section 3.1 below.
All proposal participants must be listed on the cover page, so that NASA may manage
organizational conflict of interest during peer review. Technical Note: Generally, team
members beyond the PI and FI do not confer any advantage during the review process.
3.1 International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Export Administration Regulation
(EAR), Foreign Institutions, and the People’s Republic of China
FINESST primarily supports fundamental research and/or technology development
projects that normally are not subject to export control. However, should the FI's
proposed research project fall under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or
Export Administration Regulations (EAR), then only U.S. persons may be the PI and FI,
and proposers must identify the parts of the proposal that contain ITAR material as
instructed in Appendix A of the 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Proposers whose
research might occur outside of the U.S. or with organizations outside the U.S. should
see Section 12 regarding "Foreign Participation".
Export controls are restrictions applied by the U.S. Government to the transfer of certain
goods, services, software, technical data, and technology to foreign entities. FINESST
is primarily for research, i.e., work, that supports open, basic, or fundamental science
and technology. However, the NSPIRES Cover Page includes this question: Does this
proposal contain information and data that are subject to U.S. export control laws and
regulations including Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and International Traffic
in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Please note: If the answer is "yes," the cover of the
proposal shall have a notice clearly indicating which parts of the proposal (e.g., page
number, section, figure) contain export control information. Indicate all information and
data that are subject to provisions of U.S. export control laws and regulations.
Describe and clearly highlight information and/or data that contain export-controlled
material because it may be necessary during review for NASA to redact such
information. The proposer’s Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) or
sponsored research office will be able to provide information about EAR and ITAR
requirements, if any. If you think this is an issue for your research, talk to your PI and
AOR about how your organization manages proposals that contain EAR/ITAR.
International students who are enrolled at a U.S. university are eligible to be Future
Investigators for a FINESST proposal only through that university. FINESST proposals
that include participants affiliated with only organizations in the U.S. and People's
Republic of China (PRC) may be considered a bilateral activity and thus ineligible for
funding from NASA because of legal prohibitions. Proposing organizations must certify
the proposed activity is not PRC-U.S. bilateral to receive an award from NASA. See
Section III.c of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/prc-faq-roses/ .

F.5-8
3.2 Data Limitations and Requirements
3.2.1 Data Eligibility
Spacecraft mission data to be used in the proposed work must be available in a publicly
accessible archive (see https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/science-data) at least 30
days prior to the proposal due date.
Proposals that require spacecraft mission data that have not been public for at least 30
days prior to the proposal due date are not compliant and may be returned without
review or declined after review, no matter the peer review rating. The 30-day portion of
the data eligibility requirement applies only to spacecraft mission data, not to other kinds
of data, such as airborne campaigns, field campaigns, fieldwork, etc., or that are
collected as part of the proposed research. Proposers to the Earth Science Division
should review Section 2.1 for specific requirements.
Proposals that can proceed with existing or public data, i.e., are not reliant on future
data, but would make use of future data if/when it becomes available during the duration
of the award are acceptable. Proposers should make it clear that the project would be
improved by future data, but such data is not necessary to complete the proposed
objectives. Proposing to use any kind of data that has not yet been collected is a risk
but is not prohibited. If a project is completely dependent on data not yet acquired,
publicly available, etc., that could prevent selection and/or be noted as a proposal
weakness.
3.2.2 Data Management Plans
The point of the required Data Management Plan (DMP) is to ensure that the proposer
plans what data will be made public and that time is allocated to that important task. A
DMP, or an explanation of why one is not needed given the nature of the work
proposed, is required to be contained within the NSPIRES cover pages. Unlike other
ROSES-22 program elements, the DMP for FINESST proposals is not part of the
proposal pdf, and it is limited to two, 4000-character plain text boxes on the NSPIRES
web pages associated with the proposal.
Proposers should plan that all data and software developed during the proposed work
will be made available by the end of the award, with certain notable exceptions: work
that is proprietary or may affect U.S. economic competitiveness; work that results in
personally identifiable human subjects research data; export-controlled data; controlled
unclassified information data; national security classified data; and SBIR/STTR
contracts. A DMP should answer the following questions:
1. What are the data types, volumes, formats, and data standards, where relevant?
2. What repository do the proposers intend to make these data available?
3. When will these data be made available?
4. Who will do the archiving and what experience do they have with this kind of
data, archive, etc.?
5. How will software be developed and released (if applicable)?
Regardless of what the DMP submitted with the proposal says, grantees must still meet
the mandatory minimum requirement that the data behind figures and tables in peer-

F.5-9
reviewed publications be available electronically at the time of release, ideally in
supplementary material with the article.
Third-party resource support letters to archive the data, permissions from data
owners/authors, data licenses, or any other scenario are not required. Simply state in
the DMP who has agreed to what. If the proposers choose to submit a data resource
support letter(s) it may be included with the FINESST budget. For additional guidance,
see Section 4.1.7 "Budget Narrative". Do not add resource support letters from any
collaborator or team member listed under Section VI of the NSPIRES cover page and
who acknowledges commitment via NSPIRES. When a data collaborator directly
confirms in NSPIRES, that is sufficient resource commitment to the FINESST project.
4. Proposal Preparation and Submission
The FI (student) must be the primary author of the proposal’s research project
description and research readiness statement.
All proposals must be submitted in electronic format via NSPIRES or grants.gov. When
creating the proposal in NSPIRES, the proposer must choose a division (see Section 2)
to which the proposal will be submitted, even if its interdivisional research, see Section
2.6. The main body text of proposals and captions must use an easy-to-read font of no
more than 15 characters per horizontal inch (typical of 12-point Times New Roman) and
no more than 5.5 lines per vertical inch (i.e., single-spaced). There must be at least one-
inch margins on all sides, and the proposal must be sized for U.S. letter size (8.5x11)
paper. In accordance with ROSES Table 1, no technical content may be put in the
margins; page numbers or disclaimers are permitted. Proposals deemed non-compliant
with formatting requirements may be returned without review.
4.1 The Elements of a FINESST Proposal
The contents of the proposal must include these elements (in the order listed and
compiled in a single PDF file): Science/Technical/Management Section,
References/Citations, Acknowledgement(s), Research Readiness Statement, CV of PI,
CV of FI, CV of Co-I(s) (optional), Current and Pending Support Statement for PI,
Current and Pending Statement for FI, Mentoring Plan or Agreement, Budget and
Narrative. An optional High End Computing Appendix may be submitted as a separate
PDF. FINESST proposals do not require a Summary Table of Work Effort. In addition to
(and after) the table of contents, the content of the proposal is as follows:
4.1.1 Science/Technical/Management Section
This section describes the proposed research project and should be self-contained
without relying on other sections of the proposal, such as the Research Readiness
Statement or Budget Narrative. Proposers may include figures and tables as
appropriate. This section, excluding citations, may total no more than six (6) pages
conforming to formatting requirements detailed above. The project description should
include the following elements:
a. A well-defined problem with a justification of its scientific significance and a
detailed approach for its resolution.

F.5-10
 b. A statement describing the relevance of the proposed work to the appropriate
SMD Division and a program within that division. If the research is relevant to
more than one division/program, please identify the other division(s).
c. A description of the approach to be taken to address the chosen problem. A
period of performance for the proposed project describing anticipated
accomplishments and major milestones, including planned publications. In cases
when the PI already has an ongoing research award from NASA, the research
proposed under FINESST may address a similar topic, but the proposal should
make clear how the proposed research goes beyond what NASA has already
funded or selected for funding.
4.1.2 References and Acknowledgements
References and/or endnotes must directly follow the project description and are not
included in the research description's 6-page limit. Provide all references for the 6-page
project description using easily understandable, standard abbreviations for journals and
complete names for books. Providing URLs can be useful in the references section but
are discouraged in the main body of the proposal and reviewers are not obligated to
follow any links.
In an acknowledgement statement of up to 150 words, there must be a statement that
affirms that the FI was the primary developer for the proposed science. In addition, the
roles of the other team member(s) in preparing the proposal must be described. For
example, when the FI discusses the proposed idea with others or receives editorial
and/or graphic support from, a writing center, copy editor, PI, colleagues, and peers to
improve the proposal (e.g., grammar, clarity, structure), such discussions, contributions,
or editorial help should be acknowledged.
Though this FINESST element does not specify what is "allowed content" for either
References or the Acknowledgements section, these sections should not include
technical information that belongs in the project description. The 2022 NASA Guidebook
for Proposers explains restrictions and preferences for bibliographies and appendices.
4.1.3 Research Readiness Statement
This section consists of a research readiness statement of up to one page authored by
the FI that must include (a) and (b) conforming to formatting requirements (line spacing,
etc.) described above.
a. State and describe how the FI’s undergraduate and/or graduate degree program
and interactions with the mentor(s) prepare, or will prepare, the FI for the
proposed research.
Some possible questions to address include (but are not limited to): has the FI’s
past, current, and/or planned coursework and self-directed study given the FI a
good foundational understanding of the general subject area related to the
proposed research? If a particular computer programming language, statistical
analysis tool, experimental technique is required for the proposed project, is the
FI proficient or has a plan to become proficient?
b. Provide a graduate study timeline that states i) the degree type (Ph.D., Master’s,
both or other type of graduate degree, e.g., M.D.); ii) the subject area, iii) how

F.5-11
 long the FI has been (or if not yet admitted, expects to be) enrolled in the
program, and iv) the estimated graduation date in Month/Year format.
Part (c) should be included as appropriate, and should conform to formatting
requirements (line spacing, etc.) described above:
c. State and describe other experiences and/or self-directed learning activities that
are relevant to the proposed research.
This includes, but is not limited to, short courses offered at conferences,
summer/winter schools, independent research projects, internships, work
experience, volunteer experience, or teaching experience.
4.1.4 Curriculum Vitae for the PI (mentor) and the FI
The PI's and FI's Curriculum Vitae (CV) or resume are mandatory and limited to two
pages each. Any mentors beyond the PI may be given the role of (unfunded) Co-I or
collaborators, depending on their level of involvement. A one-page CV is optional for
any Co-I(s). Do not provide CVs for collaborators.
4.1.5 Current and Pending Statements for the PI and the FI
Current and Pending (C&P) Support has no page limits. In a deviation from ROSES, FIs
must identify, when applicable, any external-to-the-proposing organization funding, e.g.,
from U.S. federal, U.S. non-federal, and non-U.S. sources or active applications for
grants, fellowships etc., particularly those that have overlap with the proposed work. All
PIs, regardless of the time devoted to FINESST, likewise must report C&P. There is no
template established for reporting this information and if the reviewing Division has a
template posted, such templates may be used, but are not required. C&P templates or
forms in use by the proposing institution are welcome.
To make it clear to NASA when the FI and/or PI have no C&P to report, include a joint
statement or separate statements, if applicable, that there is "No C&P funding to report".
4.1.6 Mentoring Plan or Agreement
This section should not exceed two pages, except in the exception noted below. The
Mentoring Plan/Agreement’s purpose is to provide the FI with a holistic plan for
developing skills and acquiring knowledge and experience necessary to complete the
research project and/or personal professional development. This plan is reviewed under
the research readiness criterion from Section 5.1. This mentoring plan does not need to
re-state information provided in response to Sections 4.1.1 - 4.1.4. The mentor(s) may
explain in the mentoring plan why they have agreed to support this FI’s research. See
also Section 12.20.
Both the FI and mentor prepare this agreement. It may include more than one mentor;
however, having additional mentors does not extend the page limit. Non-PI mentors do
not have to be at the submitting institution. It is optional to include mentors beyond the
PI, but if they are named, they must be added to the NSPIRES cover page as team
members and must confirm their participation via NSPIRES.
The content, format, and organization of the mentoring plan are at the discretion of the
PI-FI team.

F.5-12
Exception: If the submitting institution has a standard Mentor-Mentee checklist, plan,
agreement, template, that is longer than two pages, uses font size, margins, etc., that
do not conform to this solicitation’s formatting requirements, the institution’s standard is
acceptable, the proposal will not be labeled as non-compliant nor rejected for this
reason.
4.1.7 Budget and Narrative
This section may not exceed two pages, though some exceptions are given below.
Unlike other ROSES programs, there is no need for a separate "Total Budget" file.
Proposers may request FI funding in one of three different ways:
1. As a direct labor cost, the same as a key or other personnel;
2. As a scholarship or other student aid that shall comply with the requirements in 2
CFR 200.466, Scholarships and student aid costs; or
3. As a participant support cost as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, Definitions.
While the NSPIRES cover pages ask for cursory budget data, that is not sufficient; it is
necessary to include a section within the proposal. FINESST awards are subject to the
normal government and NASA policies regarding allowable costs, e.g., see 12.13 and
12.16 below.
The within-proposal budget must include proposed start and end dates and include
information by cost categories. Given NASA's review schedule and other limitations, the
start date should be close to September 1 and the latest allowable start date is one year
(approximately) from this solicitation’s February due date (See Section 11 for specific
dates). NASA reserves the right to change the requested start date/end date for the
award’s period of performance.
The budget normally is broken down by year. The year may be a calendar year or some
other logical period, e.g., academic year. The total amount proposed may not exceed
$50,000 per 12-months for all costs combined, i.e., stipend, travel related costs (e.g.,
registration, airfare, meals and incidental expenses, ground transportation) in support of
conferences, symposia, or collaborative meetings and/or research, fees/tuition, and
other FI support costs (e.g., expendable laboratory supplies, page charges for journal
articles, printing of a thesis, health insurance policy, textbooks, or other instructional
supports).
The budget narrative should provide justifications of the requested amount in each
category. When requesting participant support costs, input the FI costs on the NSPIRES
cover pages under letter E. Direct Costs-Participant/Trainee Support Cost. NSPIRES
listed subcategories are: 1) Tuition/Fees/Health Insurance, 2) Stipends, 3) Travel, 4)
Subsistence, and 5) Other.
Excepted from the two-page limit is any necessary special documentation. This could
include documentation that may be required from a non-profit that is not an education
organization that the proposed FI is enrolled/in good standing at an eligible degree
program at a university. Another example of special documentation allowed by ROSES
and Section 3.17 in the Proposer's Guidebook are "Letters of Resource Support'' to
demonstrate that a facility or resource is available for the proposed use, though if the

F.5-13
proposing team has regular access to a facility or resource, no letter of support is
needed.
4.1.8 Optional High-End Computing Appendix
The High-End Computing (HEC) program (https://www.hec.nasa.gov/) provides a
specialized computational infrastructure to support NASA's research community.
Proposers to FINESST may apply for HEC resources to support their research by
uploading an Appendix as a separate PDF file, so do not include it in the main proposal
PDF file. See 12.27-12.31 for details on how to pursue this option.
4.2 Proposal Compliance
FINESST requirements supersede other guidance provided in the NASA Guidebook to
Proposers and the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, see Section 12.
Do not include undergraduate or graduate transcripts for the FI and letters of
recommendation from the PI, or from anyone else in the proposal. Proposals containing
such unsolicited appendices/attachments may be declared noncompliant and may be
returned without review.
Proposals not submitted by the due date, and/or that do not meet the eligibility, page
length, formatting and/or other requirements may be returned without review.
All team members must be listed on the NSPIRES cover page. A proposal may not be
submitted if any listed team member, including unfunded collaborators, do not log into
NSPIRES and confirm their role on the proposal.
The FI is to be added to the Team member section of the cover page with the role
"Graduate/Undergraduate Student" and can be given edit privileges to allow them to
edit the cover page and upload the proposal.
4.3 Confirmation of Proposal Submission and Late Proposals
Proposals must be completed and submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
on the due date given in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES. NSPIRES generates an automatic
acknowledgement when any proposal is submitted. Proposals submitted late may be
returned without review.
5. Proposal Evaluation and Selection
Prior to peer review, SMD staff or contractors may conduct a compliance/relevance
review. If, prior to review, SMD staff suspect that a proposal has been submitted to the
wrong division, then the proposer will be given the opportunity to move to another SMD
division or shared with another SMD division for additional review.
5.1 Review
The standard proposal review process includes an assessment of a proposal’s
strengths and weaknesses for each review criterion. The default definitions of
evaluation criteria are given in see Appendix D of The 2022 NASA Guidebook for
Proposers. These criteria are applied as described in Section V of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and are slightly modified as described below.
The criteria for evaluation of FINESST proposals are:

F.5-14
(a) The scientific merit of the proposed research project. Assessment of the scientific
merit of the proposed research includes:
1. The compelling nature of the research topic.
2. The exhibited depth of understanding of the research topic.
3. The expected impact of the research, should it succeed.
4. The feasibility of the proposed research plan, including the availability of
resources for successful completion of the project.
5. The robustness of the research plan to anticipated setbacks.
(b) The relevance of the proposed research or technology development project to high-
level SMD goals and objectives, or specific outcomes identified in SMD program
documents, findings in decadal surveys, reports of NASA advisory groups, etc. Links to
the NASA Science Plan entitled Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence,
the prior (2014) Science Plan, the NASA 2018 Strategic Plan, and other documents, at
https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy. Space Biology and Physical
Sciences research priorities and goals in this NRA were set by the 2011 National
Academies report Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical
Sciences Research for a New Era, and further defined by the 2017 report A Midterm
Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences
Research at NASA. Assessment of the relevance of the proposed research includes:
1. SMD's objectives as described in Section 2: Division Research Overviews.
2. How the proposal describes the relevance of the proposed work to the particular
division that will review the proposal.
3. How the proposed research relates to one or more of the four cross-cutting
priorities: Exploration and Scientific Discovery, Innovation, Interconnectivity and
Partnerships, and Inspiration in Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific
Excellence.
Peer reviewers may comment on relevance and may even provide a rating, but the
funding SMD Division makes the ultimate determination on relevance.
(c) Research readiness assessment
This criterion focuses on how the FI's research design and approach correlate with their
actual research skills/capabilities as described in the:
1. FI's research readiness statement.
2. The PI-FI Mentoring Plan/Agreement.
3. The FI's curriculum vitae/resume.
4. The PI's curriculum vitae/resume.
Assessment of the research readiness may include:
i. Demonstration of a good understanding of the general subject area and
background science related to the proposed research
ii. FI’s involvement in any activities that make them particularly capable of
conducting the proposed research.
iii. Whether the FI has the required technical skill(s) to carry out the project
currently, or whether the FI and/or the mentor(s) have plans for the FI to gain
such skill(s).

F.5-15
 iv. Whether the PI and other research mentor(s), if applicable, possess
qualifications suited for the proposed research project.
v. Whether the proposed mentoring activities will advance the ability of the FI to
conduct the proposed research.
(d) Cost reasonableness
FINESST grants are limited cost category awards. NASA personnel will look at the split
between stipend and other participant support costs (see Section 6).
6. Award Information and Restrictions
Unless otherwise specified in the proposal, the default start date of all new awards is
September 1, 2023.
The maximum amount of a FINESST award is $50,000 per 12-months and up to
$150,000 total for a maximum period of performance of up to 36 months, not including
any hiatus or leave without stipend, if applicable, or any no cost extension (NCE).
SMD suggests a student stipend of $40,000 per 12 months; however, the stipend
should be comparable with the institution’s prevailing rate. When the FI’s level of effort
will be less than 12 months, then the institution normally prorates the FINESST stipend
in the budget.
The FINESST grant can fund up to a three-year research project, contingent upon
availability of funds and satisfactory performance as demonstrated through the annual
progress report from the PI and FI. Not all projects require the maximum amount
available in the period of performance. Proposers should lay out the proposal's budget
justification as explained in 4.1.7 Budget and Narrative.
Students funded by a FINESST grant may receive funding from other sources for
expenses not covered by this award (e.g., to purchase equipment). FIs may take a
hiatus to pursue other activities such as internships, family leave, military leave, etc.
When a student is on hiatus for any period after the funding has been awarded, the
student will not receive a FINESST stipend and the institution shall not draw
down/spend the FINESST stipend funds during the FI's hiatus.
During the period that a FINESST proposal is under consideration or during the period
of performance of a FINESST grant, the funded institution’s Authorized Organization
Representative (AOR) must inform NASA if the student has accepted any Federal
fellowship or traineeship that 1) provides stipend and other participant support costs,
e.g., tuition, and 2) is longer than three months in duration. In an instance when such a
proposal is selected to receive a FINESST grant, NASA may require a revised budget
and, if appropriate, a revised proposal for any active award to ensure that the FI can
devote sufficient time to the FINESST research.
A PI may have FINESST and other (e.g., ROSES, NSF, DoD) proposals with
overlapping scope of work submitted at the same time. In this case, the PI should
acknowledge in the budget justification or note in the C&P that funds are requested
elsewhere. If accepting a FINESST grant, the PI must alert the FINESST technical
officer of any overlap so that budget negotiations/adjustments may ensue. The bottom
line is that NASA will not fund duplicative work.

F.5-16
7. Reporting Requirements
In accordance with any award terms and conditions provided by the NSSC at the time of
award, a progress report must be emailed annually by March 15. If an adequate
progress report is not received, then the NSSC will not send funds. For details see
Section 13 “Ancillary information for awardees”.
8. Collection of Demographic Information
NASA requests and collects demographic data from principal investigators, future
investigators, and other NSPIRES users for the purpose of analyzing demographic
differences associated with its award processes. Information collected will include
name, gender, race, ethnicity, and disability status. Submission of the information is
voluntary, confidential, and is not a precondition of award.
9. Points of Contact and Frequently Asked Questions
The participating Divisions all have representatives on the FINESST Team. Email
questions to: HQ-FINESST@mail.nasa.gov, being sure to include the division to which
your proposal would likely be submitted in the subject line.
10. Proposal Preparation: Item Check List, Page Limits and Number of PDF Files
All FINESST proposals must include the materials listed below. First, the system-
generated proposal cover pages created by filling out the required fields such as name
of the FI, electronic commitments from Co-Is or any collaborators, answering the
questions on the NSPIRES web page, e.g., providing the Data Management Plan, a
research abstract suitable for public posting upon selection, etc. There is no cover page
limit. NSPIRES will generate the required number of pages and automatically place this
at the front of the proposal if the fields are filled out. There is no need to download the
cover page and attach it to the uploaded PDF file.
Checklist of Items to be included in the single proposal PDF File (all page limits
maximum, unless specified):
• Table of Contents - 1 page.
• Science/Technical/Management Section (authored by the FI) - 6 pages, including
illustrations, tables, figures, and foldouts.
• References and Acknowledgements (authored by the FI) at minimum include an
acknowledgement a regarding the FI’s contributions to proposal. No page limit.
• Research Readiness Statement (authored by the FI) - 1 page.
• Curriculum Vitae (CV) for the PI (mentor) and the FI - 2 pages each.
• CV for Co-I(s) Optional - 1 page each. Do not include CV for collaborators.
• Current and Pending Statements for the PI and the FI (one statement each, as
needed; if no Current and Pending, state "No current and pending to report.") No
page limit.
• Mentoring Plan or Agreement - up to 2 pages. Exception: If the submitting
institution has a standard Mentor-Mentee checklist, plan, agreement, template,
etc., and it is longer than 2-pages, uses font size, margins, etc., that do conform
to this solicitation, then the institution’s standard is acceptable.

F.5-17
 • Budget and Narrative - 2 pages, which may be exceeded if special
documentation is needed e.g., if a submitting institution is not an education
organization, proof will be needed that the proposed FI is enrolled/in good
standing in an eligible degree program at a university, etc.
Second PDF File - only when applicable:
● Optional High-End Computing (HEC) Appendix, See Sections 12.27-12.31 for
details.
11. Summary of Key Information [Amended February 14, 2023]
Expected annual program No dedicated budget: selected proposals will be
budget for new awards funded by the relevant SMD Division or program.
Number of new awards pending Awards by division may range from 1 to ~60. See
adequate proposals of merit "Historical Numbers of New Awards" in Section 12,
Maximum duration of awards 3 years and see Section 6.
Due date for Notice of Intent to Not Applicable. Notices of Intent are not
propose (NOI) requested/accepted for this program element.
Due date for proposals Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 pm Eastern time on February 21, February
7, 2023.
Planning date for start of Typically, September 1, 2023. No earlier than
investigation August 1, 2023. No later than February 21,
February 07, 2024.
Page limit for the central 6 pages; see also Sections 4.1 and 10 of this
Science/Technical/Management program element.
section of proposal
Relevance See Section 2. Proposals that are relevant to this
program element are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
General information and See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
overview of this solicitation
Award information See Section 12, below.

General requirements for See Section 4.1 The Elements of a FINESST

content of proposals
Submission medium
General instructions for
proposal preparation and
ROSES-specific instructions
Website and detailed
instructions for the submission
of proposals via NSPIRES
Proposal.
Electronic proposal submission via NSPIRES or
Grants.gov is required; no other type of submission
is permitted.
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
https://nspires.nasaprs.com See NSPIRES Online
Help (help desk available at nspires-
help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)

F.5-18
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading a proposal
package from Grants.gov
Coordinating point of contact
concerning this program
Funding Points of Contact
Reminder: Science Engagement and Partnerships (SE&P) is not participating.
Email any SE&P comments or questions to lin.h.chambers@nasa.gov.
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-FINESST
The HQ-FINESST Team
Email: HQ-FINESST@mail.nasa.gov
FINESST Program Scientists by Division:
Earth Science: allison.k.leidner@nasa.gov
amy.p.chen@nasa.gov
Planetary Science: amanda.l.nahm@nasa.gov
lindsay.hays@nasa.gov
Astrophysics:
antonino.cucchiara@nasa.gov
stefan.m.immler@nasa.gov
Heliophysics: patrick.koehn@nasa.gov
Biological & Physical Science:
lisa.a.scottcarnell@nasa.gov
F.5-19
12. Ancillary information for proposers
The Structure of ROSES and its Relationship to Other Guidance
A "program element" in ROSES, such as this one, F.5 FINESST may contain specific
requirements that supersede the common requirements found in the ROSES Summary
of Solicitation and the requirements for all NASA solicitations in the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers. The order of precedence is the following: F.5 FINESST takes
precedence, followed by F.1 the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, followed by the
Proposer’s Guidebook. That is, if FINESST tells you to do something different than what
ROSES or the Guidebook says, do what FINESST tells you to do. If you have a
question, write to HQ-FINESST@mail.nasa.gov.
Foreign Participation
Participation in ROSES-funded research by non-U.S. organizations is welcome on a "no
exchange of funds" basis, see ROSES FAQ #14 on this topic and the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers.
Proposals that involve research or collaboration outside the United States in
"Designated Countries" that also are "State Sponsors of Terrorism" will be subject to
additional levels of review by the Office of International and Interagency Relations
(OIIR) that may result in a proposal’s denial. NASA's "Designated Country (DC) List" is
hosted on the NASA Export Control website at https://www.nasa.gov/oiir/export-control.
The relevant part of the list is Column II, i.e., Countries determined by the Department
of State to support Terrorism. The DC list is updated regularly; therefore, please consult
the website to ensure use of the most up-to-date list.
Historical Number of New Awards
The number of proposals selected will be dependent on the number and quality of
proposals submitted and on the availability of funds from the relevant SMD Division or
program. The selection statistics for 2019 – 2021 are included in the spreadsheet on the
SARA GrantStats Webpage.

Proposal Preparation
Because the final, federal-wide implementation of Common Disclosure Forms for the
Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support per the National
Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-33) is not finalized as of the issuance of this
competition, NASA may ask FINESST Statements of Current and Pending Support be
updated or that other documentation be submitted upon selection or award. The
National Science Foundation (NSF) has agreed to serve as steward for these common
forms as well as for posting and maintenance of the table entitled, “NSPM-33
Implementation Guidance Pre- and Post-Award Disclosures Relating to the Biographical
Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support” at
https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/nstc_disclosure.jsp

F.5-20
12.1 How do I know if my proposal has all of the required elements?
See the Section 10. "FINESST Proposal Preparation: Item Checklist, Page Limits and
Number of PDF Files."
12.2 Where can I find information about past selected proposals?
The titles and abstracts of selected proposals to the most recent FINESST competition,
presented by the participating divisions, are posted on the NSPIRES page for FINESST
from ROSES-2021 and the NSPIRES page for FINESST from ROSES-2020 as PDF
files under the heading "Selections".
12.3 What if my proposal is relevant to multiple divisions?
Proposal submission requires choosing just one reviewing division. However, proposals
that are relevant to more than one division are welcome. Note: If the research is
relevant to more than one division/program, please identify the other division(s) in the
abstract. If, prior to a proposal's review, NASA determines that a submitted proposal
belongs to a different division, then it may suggest to the proposer that the proposal be
reassigned to another division or shared for additional review.
12.4 May I propose to do research that may overlap work previously funded by NASA,
or work that is currently submitted to NASA and is under review?
In cases when the PI already has an ongoing research award from NASA, the research
proposed under FINESST may address a similar topic, but the proposal should make
clear that the proposed research does not duplicate the existing award and how the
proposed research goes beyond what NASA has already agreed to support. It is OK if a
proposal to another ROSES program and under review has overlap with the proposed
FINESST work, but both of the proposals must be listed in the "Current and Pending
Funding'' section of the proposal, and if both are selected, it is up to the discretion of the
program officer(s) whether both proposals are selected for full funding, or if one (or
both) budgets are decreased.
12.5 May I resubmit a FINESST proposal submitted to a previous FINESST or NESSF
solicitation?
The resubmission of any declined proposal from a prior competition is permitted and will
be treated the same as an entirely new submission. There is no requirement to identify
that a submitted proposal, whether revised or unrevised, is a resubmission. If the FI
desires to identify the proposal as a resubmission, then put that information in Section
4.1.2 "References and Acknowledgements".
12.6 I received financial support from a previously funded FINESST or NESSF (NASA
Earth and Space Sciences Fellowship) grant originally awarded to another student
to finish up the project. Am I eligible to apply for a new FINESST grant?
Yes, when the student who succeeded the original FI or NESSF was funded on a
remainder budget in the amount of $50,000 or less, then the new proposal may request
the maximum of 36 months for an independent project. In any extremely rare instance

F.5-21
that a successor FI may have received more than $50,000, the new FINESST proposal
should be adjusted or pro-rated in budget amount and number of months supported.
12.7 May a NASA Civil Servant serve as an FI?
Typically, NASA civil servants at Centers or facilities, who also have a qualifying student
affiliation at an eligible degree-awarding institution may not be proposed as an FI. Such
NASA civil servants who have questions about their potential FI eligibility options must
consult their Center's General Counsel or other qualified Center authority.
12.8 Will there be a Pre-Proposal Teleconference?
Yes, on a no-advance-reservation, first-to-dial-in basis callers may attend the pre-
proposal teleconference. This optional, audio-only teleconference will be January 13,
2023, 2 p.m. Eastern Time. There will be no operator greeting or hold music. Please do
not engage in discussions with other callers or unmute yourself during the presentation.
To preserve anonymity of callers, callers must not disclose their names or institutions.
Email HQ-FINESST@mail.nasa.gov with agenda suggestions and questions using
"FINESST 2022 Telecon" in the email’s subject line on or before January 6, 2023. SMD
will post the teleconference charts no later than noon (12 p.m.). Eastern Time on the
teleconference day under "Other Documents" on FINESST’s NSPIRES page.
If a caller can’t join the call for any reason, e.g., scheduling conflict, number of callers
exceeds capacity, see 12.9 below.
No earlier than 15 minutes prior to the start time, call +1 256-715-9946. If prompted for
a Participant Passcode or a Phone Conference ID input: 360 678 472#.. Restrictions,
however, may prevent the use of a or free-phone from telephones outside or inside the
U.S.
For TTY-equipped callers or other types of relay services in the United States, no earlier
than 15 minutes before the start of the teleconference, call 711 and provide the same
conference call and participant code numbers
12.9 Will the telecon be recorded and available for replay?
The Telecon will be recorded for the purposes of creating a summary. There will be no,
on-demand replays of the pre-proposal teleconference. The telecon’s summary and any
associated question and answers will be posted under the “Other Documents” section at
https://go.nasa.gov/FINESST22.
12.10 Will the telecon and relay services be available outside of the U.S.?
Calls from outside the U.S. should work, but U.S. restrictions may prevent the use of a
free-phone, including from these types of telephones outside the U.S., or from computer
software such as Skype. 711 will not work outside the U.S.
12.11 How should travel be addressed in a proposal due to COVID-19 or other safety
concerns?
Because conditions can change rapidly in any country at any time for a variety of
reasons and disrupt the proposed or awarded FINESST, proposals that include travel
planned outside the U.S. must, at a minimum, demonstrate consultation of the State

F.5-22
Department Travel Advisories website. For travel in the U.S. for the duration of the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, proposers making requests for travel
support must consult and address the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
“Considerations for Travelers - Coronavirus in the U.S.” website as well as any
applicable state, county, or municipal laws or executive orders. The CDC also provides
international travel information at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/travelers/index.html.
A proposal that requests to include any NASA civil servant as an unfunded Co-I or
collaborator and requires travel to work with these individuals, is advised that NASA (as
of the FINESST issuance date) adheres to all stipulations of the most recent Model
Safety Principles on the Safer Federal Workforce website. NASA Contractor employees
also may be subject to similar limitations and they will consult their management
regarding potential travel. Include any such information for NASA contractors, contractor
equivalents, i.e., individuals funded on a NASA cooperative agreement, and NASA civil
servants in the budget narrative as a letter of commitment.
12.12 May we request that the FINESST award be a cooperative agreement?
FINESST awards will be grants. FINESST has not awarded cooperative agreements in
the past because SMD does not plan to offer or share personnel, property, facilities,
equipment, etc. In rare circumstances when a NASA Center may offer significant non-
monetary support, a cooperative agreement instead of a research grant may be put in
place.
12.13 May visa costs be included in the proposal’s budget?
Visa costs may be requested only when such costs qualify both as a) “Recruiting costs”
per 2 CFR 200.463 and b) participant support costs. For these costs to be directly
charged to a FINESST award, however, the budget narrative must demonstrate that the
non-U.S. FI:
1. Is critical and necessary for the conduct of the proposed FINESST research;
2. Is allowable under the applicable cost principles;
3. Is consistent with the non-Federal entity's cost accounting practices and non-
Federal entity policy; and
4. Meets the definition of “direct cost” as described in the applicable cost principles.
For additional information see Subpart E - Cost Principles in 2 CFR 200.
12.14 What is the expected amount of the FI Stipend? What if I would like to request
more than this expected amount?
SMD suggests an FI’s maximum stipend is $40,000 in any 12-month period. However, if
the standard student stipend is greater than $40,000, then up to $50,000 for stipend
may be requested provided that the other support categories are reduced to cover the
increased stipend.
In cases where the FINESST $50,000 is 1) not enough to cover the standard student
stipend or 2) not enough to cover the standard FI costs at the university for a 12-month
period, the university may choose to cover expenses from other sources and may show

F.5-23
in the proposed budget the amount and source of the cost share. Alternatively, the
proposal can plan that the FI take a hiatus to work on something funded by a non-
FINESST source. Other creative FI support strategies may be proposed, particularly in
cases where the institution treats the FI as an employee and not as a participant.
12.15 If an FI’s stipend will be less than $40,000 in a 12-month period, then may the
amounts in the stipend and other participant support budget categories be
adjusted/exchanged such that the total budget for each year does not exceed
$50,000?
Yes, if an FI’s stipend will be less than $40,000, then the amounts in the stipend and
other participant support budget categories may be adjusted/exchanged. Normally,
however, the FI’s non-stipend costs, travel, tuition, registration fees, and other
participant support costs do not exceed $10,000 in a 12-month period.
12.16 Is overhead allowable on a FINESST proposal? Post award may the budget be
adjusted to cover overhead or other costs not originally requested?
The total maximum budget request, including any allowable overhead, remains $50,000
annually up to $150,000 for 36 months. Whether overhead is allowable will depend on
the budget submitted. Sometimes, for administrative convenience, organizations ask to
propose FINESST payments to students or on behalf of students via specialized,
existing financial systems, such as but not limited to, 1) an employee payroll system or
2) a non-employee or “fellowship” system or 3) some other unique system.

Budgets should begin by specifying whether the institution is treating the FI as 1) an

employee or 2) a participant or 3) some organizationally-unique category, as this may
impact what costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable, including overhead. Grants
Officers (GO) at NASA Shared Services Center, not the FINESST Team, will have the
final word on all and any costs in the budget.

Reminder: NASA does not permit indirect costs (overhead) to be requested or

recovered on participant support costs. In addition, per § 200.456: "Participant support
cost. Participant support costs as defined in § 200.1 are allowable with the prior
approval of the Federal awarding agency." Translation: An awarded FINESST budget
provides NASA’s prior approval.

In cases where post award an organization wants to move money from participant
support costs into direct or overhead cost categories, per NASA’s award conditions
described in the GCAM, budget revisions must be approved by the GO at the NSSC
before such budget changes are implemented. The AOR will need to provide a revised
budget and justification to the Technical Officer and the NSSC for review.

12.17 Are PI or Co-I costs allowable on a FINESST proposal?

FINESST awards are intended to support only student projects and research and
therefore no salary, travel, or other costs shall be requested from SMD for the PI’s, Co-

F.5-24
I’s, or Collaborator’s use. Additionally, it is expected that a PI’s, Co-I’s, or Collaborator’s
current employment will include compensation and continues whether or not the
proposal is selected by NASA. Exceptions for joint publication or similar costs may be
permitted to the PI.
12.18 Are equipment costs allowable on a FINESST proposal?
While the purchase or lease of equipment or services in excess of $5,000 is not
permitted through FINESST awards, if an institution’s policy permits the purchase of
computers, software, digital devices, or services or materials, such as to support
mentoring or research activities for the FI or to construct a CubeSat, then these "other"
charges are allowable.
Proposers who request these “other” purchase types, or who propose to contract with a
service provider for videoconferencing, augmented reality, telepresence robots,
communications software/licenses, etc., under participant support costs in lieu of the
FI’s travel to events or to conduct the research must explain the importance of these
purchases/services and how they relate to the success, accessibility, and safety
considerations for the research performance in the budget narrative.
12.19 Are the overall budget categories strictly fixed, or is there any flexibility?
If NASA determines the proposal provides sufficient justification, then the amounts in
the stipend and other budget categories are adjustable as long as the total amount
requested does not exceed $50,000 in a 12-month period. FINESST is similar to what
2CFR200.1 Definitions calls a "Fixed Amount Award". "Fixed amount awards means a
type of grant or cooperative agreement under which the Federal awarding agency or
pass-through entity provides a specific level of support without regard to actual costs
incurred under the Federal award. This type of Federal award reduces some of the
administrative burden and record-keeping requirements for both the non-Federal entity
and Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Accountability is based primarily
on performance and results."
12.20 What is a mentoring plan?
A mentoring plan or an agreement is not a confidential recommendation; rather, it sets
respectful, reasonable expectations or goals for the collaboration between the PI/Mentor
and FI and, thus, may help to foster a good working relationship that will further the
FINESST research and the development of the FI as a scientist. The FINESST
mentoring plan/agreement should set appropriate expectations for the working
relationship early, be reviewed regularly, and be easily revisable, providing an
opportunity for FIs to request adjustments that they may otherwise find uncomfortable
bringing up with the PIs.
Through the mentoring plan, the PI/Mentor and FI will identify and work toward research
career development goals designed to deepen the FI’s understanding of the FINESST
research, career pathways, broaden resource networks, and facilitate growth as new
professionals. A non-exhaustive list of mentoring activities that a plan may include, but
is not limited to, includes: 1) training in the preparation of data, publications,

F.5-25
presentations, etc.; 2) opportunities to collaborate with researchers from diverse
backgrounds and/or disciplinary areas; and/or 3) responsible professional practices.
12.21 Where can I find some examples of a Mentoring Plan?
Your organization may have mentorship resources or templates available. Go to your
institution's website and search for keywords, such as, “mentor”, “mentee”, “mentor
resources”, etc., and communicate with your PI/Mentor and organization about
mentorship resources. If your proposing organization has mentorship information,
please use it and refer to it. If your organization has no mentorship resources, then
adapting a mentoring plan designed originally for another purpose (such as a
postdoctoral fellowship, NSF award) for use with FINESST is acceptable.
For resources related to STEM mentoring, selected URLs include:
American Association for the Advancement of Science STEM Mentor Resources:
https://www.aaas.org/stemmentoring
Pathways to Science: Mentoring Manual:
https://www.pathwaystoscience.org/manual.aspx?sort=6#pagetop
Committee on the Status of Women in Astronomy’s Mentoring Page:
https://aas.org/comms/cswa/resources/mentoring
12.22 How can I learn to use NSPIRES?
Find instructions and FAQs at NSPIRES Online Help.
12.23 How do I know NASA got the proposal? What if my proposal is marked late?
NSPIRES generates an automatic acknowledgement when any proposal is submitted. If
the institution did not receive an email confirming submission of a proposal, check spam
filters and junk boxes. If unable to locate the email acknowledgement log in to NSPIRES
to check a submission status.
NSPIRES marks FINESST proposals submitted after the due date or deadline as "late".
Late proposals will be handled in accordance with the SMD Policy on Late Proposals.
SMD does not pre-approve the submission of a late proposal. The decision to submit a
late proposal is solely that of the proposer, and it is then NASA’s decision whether to
accept it or not. Late proposals are rarely accepted. The FINESST program
scientists/administrators are not empowered to authorize the submission of a late
proposal.
When the FINESST solicitation completely shuts down on NSPIRES, the proposer is
prevented from finishing a submission
12.24 How are FINESST proposals reviewed?
SMD scientist(s) and program managers/executives, or their designees, conduct
proposal evaluations through one or a combination of the following methods: individual
reviews, virtual panels, or face-to-face panels. Reviewers can be from the external
community, including scientists at NASA Centers. While reviewers may not be experts
in every subtopic or discipline within the FI’s proposed research field, the reviewers will

F.5-26
be experts in the broader research. Thus, it is recommended that proposers write their
proposals for a general scientific audience appropriate to their field.
12.25 How are proposals selected?
The Directors of the Divisions of SMD at NASA Headquarters or their designees make
the respective award selections. The Selection Officials will select proposals as judged
against the evaluation criteria in Section 5.1, division objectives and those in this
announcement, programmatic considerations, and the available financial resources.
Many proposals will receive ratings that make them selectable but still may not be
selected for programmatic reasons, e.g., either because the proposed work is
redundant with another funded FINESST or other NASA project or the topic is deemed
by NASA to be of lower priority for funding/selection. Other programmatic
considerations include, but are not limited to, balance across subdisciplines and
institution types, technologies, methodologies, data accessibility, etc.
12.26 How will I be notified whether my proposal is selected or declined?
At the conclusion of the review and selection process, an email will be sent to the PI
and the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) from NSPIRES and the
university asking them to log into the NSPIRES. PIs/organization representatives are
responsible for downloading NASA letters and evaluation forms and sharing with the FI.
12.27 Are high-end computing resources available for FINESST proposals?
Yes. SMD provides a specialized computational infrastructure to support its research
community, managed on its behalf by NASA's High-End Computing (HEC) program
(see the HEC website at https://www.hec.nasa.gov/). Two major computing facilities are
offered, namely, the NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS) at the Goddard
Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) facility at
the Ames Research Center (ARC).
The HEC program facilities maintain a range of computing systems with significant data
storage resources. These offerings are summarized at
https://www.hec.nasa.gov/about/overview.html. Augmentation and refreshment of these
central systems occur on a periodic basis. The HEC program also provides assistance
in code porting, performance tuning, scientific data visualization, and data transfer.
Any need for computing time and other HEC Program resources for the proposed
research must be justified by completing a request for inclusion with a FINESST
proposal (see sections below).
12.28 How do I generate a request for HEC Resources?
The PI (not the FI) completes and submits a request in the HEC Request Management
System (RMS) at https://request.hec.nasa.gov.The purpose of this step is to inform
FINESST reviewers at NASA of your computational needs, and if the FINESST
proposal is selected, establish eligibility to use HEC resources. The form includes a
written justification of how the computational resources would support the investigation
as well as a multi-year resource-phasing plan, in annual increments, identifying the

F.5-27
computing time and data storage requirements covering the duration of the proposed
award period.
About the RMS User Interface: The RMS asks for information in six different sections.
Some RMS items within these sections will capture responses in a text box and some
items provided restricted or limited choices. When RMS asks:
• NASA Sponsoring Directorate, select NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD).
• NASA Sponsoring Program, select the proposal’s reviewing/funding division,
e.g., Astrophysics Division (APD), etc.
• Requested Start Date, type in 09/01/2023. Reminder: Normally FINESST start on
this date, but if you have a different start date on your NSPIRES cover page,
then use that date.
• Project Duration (in years), select either 1 or 2 or 3.
• Funding Type, select Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science
(ROSES). Funding types are listed in alphabetical order. You may need to scroll
to make the correct selection.
• Funding Year, select 2022
• Funding Name, select Future Investigators in NASA Earth and Space Science
and Technology (FINESST).
• Funding Manager, select the name of funding division’s FINESST Program
Scientist, i.e., Astrophysics (APD) = Stefan Immler, Earth (ESD) = Allison
Leidner, Heliophysics (HPD) = Patrick Koehn, and Planetary (PSD) = Lindsay
Hays, Biological and Physical Science (BPS) = Lisa Scott Carnell.
Computing time must be described in the request using Standard Billing Units (SBUs), a
common unit of measurement employed by the HEC program for allocating and tracking
computing usage across its various computing architectures. The RMS has a built-in
calculator to help convert processor (CPU) hours to SBUs. SBU Conversion Factors are
also available at https://www.hec.nasa.gov/user/policies/sbus.html, or proposers may
contact HEC support staff for further assistance calculating SBUs. Contact information
can be found at https://www.nas.nasa.gov/hecc/support/user_support.html for NAS
User Support and https://www.nccs.nasa.gov for NCCS User Services Group.
If you are having difficulties using RMS and need technical support, then please email
to support@hec.nasa.gov and specify in the subject line "NNH22ZDA001N-FINESST
HEC Request". Please allow 72 hours for a response before sending a second email.

Upload Request for HEC Resources

Save a PDF copy of your request after submitting it using the button provided in RMS.
During the proposal submission in the NSPIRES system:
• Upload the PDF version of your computing time request as a separate file from
your proposal and select "Appendix" as the document type when uploading.
• On the NSPIRES Cover Page:
− Check the box indicating that a request for HEC resources is included in
the proposal, and

F.5-28
 − Enter the HEC Request Number (specified on the PDF). Reminder: Be
sure to answer the HEC Program Specific Data questions with the
NSPIRES Cover Page.
During the review of the proposed investigation, NASA will consider whether the
computing time requested is an appropriate use of the highly constrained resources
dedicated to FINESST and factor this into HEC selection decisions.
Selection of your FINESST proposal does not guarantee that your HEC request will be
fully allocated; it means that your HEC request is eligible to progress to the next step for
evaluation by the HEC Program. While you are guaranteed some HEC time, it may
differ from your request given resource and other constraints.
If your proposal is selected for funding, your HEC request will be evaluated by the
SMD’s HEC Allocation Authority. There is also a separate identity verification process
conducted by other authorities at NASA who work in various security- and export
control-related offices. Most identify verifications are processed within 9-14 business
days or 3 to 4 calendar weeks. However, verification processing is case-by case and
may be longer if there is a foreign national from a designated country involved.
Scenarios that cause extended processing time include:
-FI or PI delayed responses for additional information. Typically, this is for additional
information related to the work description but can also be related to documentation
of a foreign national’s (FN) visit or their identity.
-Delays in providing proof of a FN’s valid entry into the U.S. Part of the NASA check
requires determining how long FNs are allowed to remain in the U.S. and/or to
determine they entered the country legally.
-Affiliation with China. If a U.S. person or foreign national is affiliated with China
(whether as a Chinese citizen or through some organization or educational institution)
the request may be submitted for review to individuals outside of NASA, i.e.
Congressional Committees, etc. This is the most significant cause of delays and can
add many, many months to the HEC allocation process.
The HEC program will then issue letters identifying yearly allocations of HEC resources
for the duration of the project, which again, may differ from your request due to limited
availability of resources. However, PIs may submit requests to increase or decrease
allocations of HEC resources if there are unexpected changes to computational needs.
Requests for modifications must be submitted via RMS. Allocation in full cannot be
guaranteed, but SMD will make every attempt to satisfy the needs in the context of the
overall set of requirements, resource constraints, and science priorities.
To expedite initiation of new projects where PIs are foreign nationals (whose accounts
will require additional documentation and longer processing), the HEC program will
consider providing a minimal allocation to such projects that have been notified of
pending funding soon after the PI submits an allocation request in RMS. PIs must
provide the name of the FI participant (note that an FI is not a Co-I) who may use the
account and identify foreign national status in the HEC request abstract.
For further information (no how-to-use-RMS nor what-is-involved-with-identity-
verification type questions) about NASA-provided High-End Computing resources,
please contact Dr. Tsengdar Lee at Tsengdar.J.Lee@nasa.gov or 202-358-0860.

F.5-29
12.29 What must be done in NSPIRES when submitting a proposal with an HEC
appendix?
During the proposal submission in the NSPIRES system, upload the PDF version of
your computing time request that you saved using the button provided in RMS as a
separate file from your proposal and select “Appendix” as the document type when
uploading.
Check the box on the proposal cover page indicating that a request for HEC resources
is included in the proposal, and enter the HEC Request Number (specified on the PDF).
Reminder: Be sure to answer the HEC Program Specific Data questions with the
NSPIRES Cover Page.
12.30 How are the HEC requests reviewed?
During the review of the proposed investigation, NASA will consider whether the
computing time requested is an appropriate use of the highly constrained resources
dedicated to FINESST and factor this into HEC selection decisions. If your proposal is
selected for funding, your HEC request will be evaluated by the SMD’s HEC Allocation
Authority. See section titled “Allocation of HEC resources” for more information.
12.31 How are HEC resources allocated?
Please note that selection of your FINESST proposal does not guarantee that your HEC
request will be fully allocated; it means that your HEC request is eligible to progress to
the next step for evaluation by the HEC Program. Allocation in full cannot be
guaranteed, but SMD will make every attempt to satisfy the needs in the context of the
overall set of requirements, resource constraints, and science priorities.
If your proposal is selected for funding, your HEC request will be evaluated by the
SMD’s HEC Allocation Authority. SMD allocates quarterly in October, January, April and
July. Out of cycle allocation requests are handled on a case-by-case basis. The HEC
program will then issue letters identifying yearly allocations of HEC resources for the
duration of the project, which again, may differ from your request due to limited
availability of resources. However, PIs may submit requests to increase or decrease
allocations of HEC resources if there are unexpected changes to computational needs.
Requests for modifications must be submitted via RMS.
To expedite initiation of new projects where PIs are foreign nationals (whose accounts
will require additional documentation and longer processing), the HEC program will
consider providing a minimal allocation to such projects that have been notified of
pending funding soon after the PI submits an allocation request in RMS. PIs must
provide the name of the FI participant who may use the account and identify foreign
national status in the HEC request abstract, where appropriate.
12.32 What if the FI is pursuing a graduate degree in a particular department or school
that doesn’t have earth or space in the name, i.e., medical, education, law, business,
agriculture, etc. Are such degrees eligible to propose to FINESST?
FINESST is not a fellowship. We don’t publish a list of eligible schools/disciplines or
determine eligibility by department/school type prior to a proposal’s review. There are

F.5-30
many degrees that are earth and space science related that don’t use those adjectives.
Nor does the FINESST team determine a proposal’s eligibility prior to a proposal’s
receipt. The research proposal must address a well-defined problem/activity and a
justification of its scientific significance to SMD, as well as a detailed approach for its
solution/conduct.
12.33 When a non-degree-granting institution proposes an FI, what kind of “evidence”
is SMD looking for “from the accredited U.S. education institution of the student’s
enrollment/good standing in an eligible degree program.” Is a canned form letter OK? Or
are you looking for transcript or endorsement? Does it have to be from an education
institution? Or can the nondegree-granting proposing institution certify the student?
This is administrative requirement not an endorsement or recommendation. Do not
include student transcripts. Canned letters from a qualified source attached to the
budget justification is the evidence, i.e., proof that the proposed FI is enrolled/in good
standing at an eligible U.S. university.
12.34 When submitting a proposal that was reviewed but not funded last year (or a prior
year), that fact may be added to the acknowledgement section. Is it acceptable also to
include this language throughout the proposal? For example would it be advised to
address reviewers comments by saying "I have addressed previous comments by
adding something regarding my aims"?
A prior year(s) review is not cumulative. You're starting fresh when you submit to this
FINESST solicitation. FINESST-22 reviewers will not have access to earlier proposals
or reviewer comments. There is no requirement or encouragement to acknowledge prior
reviewer’s comments anywhere in the proposal. Acknowledgment of a past review is
optional.
12.35 Is FINESST a program that participates in Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
(DAPR)? Is it OK to prepare and submit a FINESST proposal as a DAPR proposal?
FINESST-22 does not participate in DAPR. Please prepare your non-anonymous
proposal as requested in the FINESST solicitation. If you submit your proposal as a
DAPR it will be subject to the same review as non-anonymous proposals. Or an
anonymous proposal may be returned as noncompliant.
12.36 Would a proposal be discounted because the broad research topic was funded at
least once last year or the year before, even though the goals are very different? How
does SMD decide what is different enough or not from previous projects?
The questions assume that SMD is making selection decisions on a cumulative basis.
That is not the case in most FINESST divisions. For divisions that make multiple
awards, there may be several projects under an overall research topic in a given year or
none at all. Funding availability is a key factor for how projects get selected.
13. Ancillary information for awardees
Grants and cooperative agreements will be subject to the policies and provisions
identified in the regulations at 2 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 200, NASA
Grants and Cooperative Agreements Manual (GCAM), and the NASA Guidebook

F.5-31
 for Proposers. References to the Grant and Cooperative Agreement Manual
(GCAM) use the October 2022 version. Awards, however, will be subject to a
revised, forthcoming GCAM. GCAM editions are available from the Grants Policy
and Compliance Branch webpages at
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/procurement/gpc/regulations_and_guidance
13.1 If a proposal has been selected, but funds have not yet been received at the
institution, can costs be incurred?
Yes. Up to 90 calendar days before NASA issues an award, NASA has waived the
requirement for award recipients to obtain written approval prior to incurring project
costs. In other words, all new awards receive an automatic 90 days of pre-award
spending approval. However, expenses incurred more than 90 calendar days before the
award require prior written approval from a NASA Grant Officer at the NSSC. All costs
incurred before NASA makes the award are at the recipient's risk (i.e., NASA is not
required to reimburse such costs if for any reason the recipient does not receive an
award or if the award is less than anticipated and inadequate to cover such costs). Note
that a proposed project’s proposed start date may or may not be the same as its award
date.
Changes to awards
13.2 What if the Program Officer requests a change to the proposed budget?
A revised budget and revised detailed narrative justification may be requested before a
selection or an award can be made. No commitment on the part of NASA should be
inferred from technical or budgetary communications with a SMD civil servant,
contractor, or JPL employee requesting budget revisions. Proposers are cautioned that
only a NASA Grant/Contracting Officer from the NSSC may make commitments,
obligations, or awards on behalf of NASA or authorize the expenditure of funds.
13.3 What if the awardee would like a change in the Period of Performance (POP) for a
FINESST award?
Changes to the period performance, including no cost extensions, will follow normal
NASA grant procedures. The PI and FI are to work with the university’s Office of
Sponsored Research, or its equivalent, to determine the appropriate allocation in each
budget category at the time of proposal and any subsequent changes to the budget post
award in the annual progress report.
If the NSSC implements the change of a period of performance as an administrative
supplement (or amendment), the duration or project's period of performance may
exceed three calendar years or 36 months. For example, SMD will accommodate
reasonable requests for a hiatus (to pause and later resume funding for the research
project) for family, medical, or military leave or for the student to gain other experiences
(e.g., teaching, conducting fieldwork).
13.4 At the end of a FINESST POP, are these awards eligible for a no cost extension?
Yes. Awardees who would like to seek a No-Cost Extension Request must visit
https://www.nssc.nasa.gov/nocostextension.

F.5-32
13.5 What if there needs to be a change to the personnel originally proposed/awarded
or a change in recipient/proposing institution?
The process will depend on whether or not a NASA award was issued. See also 13.7.
If an award is in place and the PI needs to be changed, then the standard NASA
policies and practices apply per the Grants and Cooperative Agreement Manual
(GCAM) Section 7.7 “Change of Principal Investigator or Recipient Institution”.
If post-selection notification but prior to a NASA award, i.e., transfer from NSPIRES to
the NSSC, the PI or recipient institution, needs to be changed, then the AOR must
contact the selecting division and email HQ-FINESST@mail.nasa.gov. If it is a simple PI
change, the AOR should be able to submit a request to change the PI by providing the
proposed new PI’s CV, C&P and an updated mentoring plan uploaded to NSPIRES as a
revised proposal before the proposal is transferred to the NSSC.
If post-selection notification but prior to a NASA award, the proposing institution does
not intend to name a new PI and prefers to allow the selected proposal to move or
transfer to a different institution, then the AOR should contact the selecting division and
email HQ-FINESST@mail.nasa.gov and officially turn down the selection. When a
FINESST proposal is selected after the PI and FI together have changed organizations
and the selecting division has been notified, the transferring PI and FI and a new AOR
must submit a proposal using the same topic as the selected research via NSPIRES
using F.99 “Principal Investigator Organization Change” (NNH22ZDA001N-PIMOVE22).
In the event that an FI leaves the institution prior the completion of the awarded
research project or ceases to participate in the FINESST research for any other reason,
and prior to an official change request, the PI and FI should email the grant’s technical
officer, and if different, the Division’s point of contact listed in Section 11, to let them
know of the anticipated request so that the Division can weigh in on the best course of
action, and make recommendations on a case-by-case basis.
An institution may propose that an eligible graduate student at the institution, who is
pursuing similar research, be named to expend the balance of the FINESST funds
already with the institution. The request from the PI and the Office of Sponsored
Research should come in the form of an email to the award's technical officer at HQ, the
grants officer at the NSSC, and to HQ-FINESST@mail.nasa.gov, and must include: 1) A
statement (preferably from the original FI) indicating the date and reason for departure;
2) The successor FI's 2-page CV; 3) A new mentoring plan; 3) Confirmation of the
substitute student’s status as a M.Sc. or Ph.D. student; and 4) Specify what, if any,
change(s) is necessary to the period of performance and/or research scope. NASA will
evaluate FI changes for administrative and/or merit-based reasons. However, students
who had three years of NESSF or FINESST funding are not eligible to be named as an
FI.
NASA review of such change requests includes, but is not limited to, scientific merit and
continued relevance to NASA factors before deciding whether to approve. If approved,
NASA may choose only to allow a substitute student to use the current grant year funds
and will not provide additional funds in future years. In cases when there is substantial

F.5-33
time left on the grant, then NASA likely will deny the request. Such large amounts are
more appropriate for NASA’s direct competitive award. Submit a request for one student
and do not submit requests to fund two (or more) students to replace the original FI.
If the institution chooses not to propose a substitute FI, then the AOR still must email
the award’s program or technical officer at HQ, grants officer at the NSSC, and HQ-
FINESST@mail.nasa.gov with the news of the FI’s departure and request an earlier end
date to the period of performance. NASA will then proceed to close out the grant.
13.6 What if the FI graduates or leaves the project early?
Make sure the organization’s sponsored research office (i.e., the grant’s AOR) is
notified before reaching out to NASA. Some institutions do not permit the naming of a
successor FI. In the event that an FI leaves the institution prior the completion of the
research project or ceases to participate in the FINESST research for any other reason,
and prior to an official change request (e.g. to name a new student as the FI), the PI
and FI should email the grant’s technical officer, and if different, the Division’s point of
contact listed in Section 11, to let them know of the anticipated request so that the
Division can weigh in on the best course of action, and make recommendations on a
case-by-case basis.
If an FI obtains a Master’s Degree in under three years and is continuing as a Ph.D.
student at the awarded institution, then the FINESST grant can continue.
After completing a terminal degree (Master’s or Ph.D.), if there is a year or less
remaining on the FINESST award, and if it is acceptable to the awarded institution, the
FI may remain at the grantee institution to continue the research, but no additional funds
will be sent for the award.
13.7 If the FI moves to a new organization, can the FINESST award be moved as well?
FINESST awards may follow a student to a new institution. FIs who have not used the
full three years of FINESST funding may be proposed from the new institution with a
new PI. The Science Mission Directorate may consider funding such a FI on a single
source proposal, i.e., a non-competitive, invitation-only mechanism or, if time permits,
ask that a follow-on or transfer proposal be submitted to an open FINESST solicitation.
These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis with approval required from the
funding SMD Division’s Selecting Official and the NASA Shared Services Center. For
example, when only the student and not the PI is transferring to a new institution, then
the FI, PI, or AOR must email HQ-FINESST@mail.nasa.gov. In conjunction with the
NSSC, the FINESST award’s technical officer to determine whether funding is available.
Send such requests immediately and allow at least six months for NASA processing.
13.8 What happens if there is a disruption to the project during the award Period of
Performance?
SMD is deeply concerned for the health and safety of people involved in NASA research
and we will do our part to help awardees to develop into future leaders, particularly
graduate students, postdocs, and early career researchers in the United States.
Therefore, should funded FINESST projects be disrupted due to local, national, or

F.5-34
international natural or other disasters and require a performance period extension
and/or to change scope, SMD program managers will be flexible and will ask the NSSC
to be as accommodating as Federal Grant Policy Regulations permit. See for example
the Grant Notice (GN 20-2) entitled "Guidance Regarding Salary Flexibility for Grant
Recipients Impacted by COVID-19".
13.9 What is a progress report?
Performance (also known as progress) reports are short documents of approximately 2-
4 pages that give an update on the work that has been done in a given project over the
last year since the previous report was submitted, or in the case of a first report, since
the award was initiated. They may be shorter in the first year.
13.10 When are annual progress reports due?
Progress reports are due annually by March 15. As is normal for NASA grants under 2
CFR 200, this program requires only the standard mandatory minimum Research
Performance Progress Report (RPPR). Regardless of initial performance start date,
progress reports are due annually by March 15. When March 15 falls on a non-workday,
the next business day is a suitable email delivery/send date. The first progress report is
due by March 15, 2024.
13.11 What email addresses should be used for the Progress Reports?
Email an annual progress report as PDF attachments to NSSC-Grant-
Report@mail.nasa.gov and the technical officer identified on NASA Form 1687 (the first
page of the grant award documents from the NSSC.
All FINESST progress report emails must have a subject line that states 1) the NSSC-
issued award number, 2) the PI Name, and 3) the Institution Name. Failure to use and
include the three items in the email subject line may significantly delay processing.
13.12 What should be included in the Progress Report?
Progress report elements must be combined into a single PDF document and include
the following, although each given section may be brief:
I. Administrative
A. Name and address of the recipient’s institution & Award Number
B. Name of the Principal Investigator
C. Name of the Future Investigator
D. Award Title
E. Type of Report: Choose one: Annual/Final
F. Period covered by the report: <Month/Year to Month/Year>
G. New Technology: Indicate/Choose one: i.) No New Technology to Report
or ii.) New Technology is Reported under Accomplishments.
II. Accomplishments
A. Start by reminding NASA what are the major goals and objectives of the
project, and what did the FI do to progress toward those goals?

F.5-35
 B. Did the FI do coursework or receive any professional development funded
by the project? Provide an update toward completing a degree program
with month/year completion date estimated. If no coursework was planned
or taken, state no coursework for this period.
III. Status/Changes/Issues/Updated Budget Narrative Justification (if applicable)
A. FI should discuss any stated goals not met or started.
B. If the PI/Institution got a warning/notification from the NSSC (e.g., "zero
drawdown") because funds are not being spent, then the progress report
should explain the lack of funds drawn down (e.g., because the student is
on hiatus).
C. If not previously reported in writing to the NASA Shared Services Center
and the awards technical officer at NASA Headquarters through other
mechanisms (i.e., calls, emails), provide the following additional
information:
■ Changes in approach and reason for change.
■ Actual or anticipated problems or delays and actions or plans to
resolve them.
■ Changes that have a significant impact on expenditures.
■ An updated budget justification narrative, if needed, especially if it is
anticipated that the student may graduate, take a hiatus, or leave the
program or university for any reason during the remainder of the grant.
IV. Dissemination Activities (if applicable)
A. Have the results/activities been disseminated? For example, include a list
of presentations, publications, videos with URLs, etc. Publications,
including web postings, should acknowledge NASA support, including the
FINESST program name and the NASA award number.
V. An Updated PI/FI mentoring plan/agreement (optional)
VI. Known Future Plans
A. Do the PI/FI anticipate a hiatus and/or no-cost extension?
B. If this is a final report, will the work continue post funding?
C. Is the FI remaining at the institution or moving on to new studies or a job
offer, etc.?
VII. High-End Computing (if applicable)
A. If applicable, a progress report may include a new (or updated) request or
modify high-end computing resources. If the PI wants to submit a new
HEC request, see section 12.27 etc. for details. A copy of a new HEC
request should be provided as separate PDF file from FINESST award’s
progress report to the technical officer. The NSSC will need a copy of the
HEC request. If the project has an existing HEC-issued award and a
modification is needed, please follow the guidance provided from HEC.
13.13 What needs to be done if the FI will not be continuing the project?

F.5-36
If, for any reason, the organization will not be requesting continuation of a FINESST
grant, send an email to the award's 1) technical officer, 2) HQ-
FINESST@mail.nasa.gov, and 3) the Grant’s Officer at the NASA Shared Services
Center (NSSC) to the indicate that the project is ending early and a final report is
forthcoming to close out the award. Various final and closeout reports will be described
in the NSSC award documentation.
13.14 Is spending on FINESST awards potentially subject to future audits?
Expenditures under any NASA grants, including FINESST, are subject to inspection and
audit during the period of the grant and for three years thereafter. Records at the
awarded institution must be maintained in sufficient detail to evidence prudent
management and to facilitate the preparation of the required reports for determining
whether expenditures are being/were made for the purposes for which the funds were
granted.
13.15 Are there any requirements for reporting or archiving work published from this
project?
The NASA grant or cooperative agreement recipient must submit final peer-reviewed
manuscripts (accepted for publication) to the NASA-designated repository per
instructions found on the Scientific Technical and Information program webpage within
one year of peer-review. In keeping with the NASA Plan for Increasing Access to
Results of Federally Funded Research, awards require that “as accepted” manuscript
versions of peer-reviewed publications and associated data are deposited in the
agency’s designated repository, NASA PubSpace. This excludes patents, publications
that contain material governed by personal privacy, export control, proprietary
restrictions, or national security law or regulations.

NASA has entered into a partnership agreement with the Clearinghouse for the Open
Research of the United States (CHORUS) publishing group. NASA researchers who
publish in a CHORUS member’s journal can now more easily satisfy the Agency’s
requirements for public access .

For the most recent information, visit: https://sti.nasa.gov/research-access/.

13.16 Are there any intellectual property (IP) rights for the work produced during the
course of this project?
For information about data rights and other aspects of intellectual property such as
patent rights resulting from awards, see, for example, Sections D10. Patent Rights and
D11. Rights in Data in the most recent NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Manual. Technical Note: NASA changes award conditions related to data and IP
whenever there is a new funding increment awarded using the most recent GCAM.
13.17 Does NASA offer support for individuals receiving funding who experience
discrimination or harassment during their work?
NASA does not offer “support” services; however, depending on the individual’s
employment status at the grantee institution, local support resources may be available

F.5-37
through a union, a Veteran and Military Affairs (VMA) Office; the State-level equivalent
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), etc.. Many higher
education institutions have support resources for non-employees, e.g., students, such
as but not limited to health services, Offices of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and
community service officers. A search of the recipient institution’s website may help to
locate resources related to bias, bullying, harassment, etc.

Assault or threats of assault of any kind are a criminal offenses over which NASA has
no authority. NASA strongly encourages assault victims and witnesses to report to the
local police, and if applicable campus police, and the NASA Office of the Inspector
General at https://oig.nasa.gov/contact.html. Always report immediate threats to 911.

Students, faculty or staff in programs receiving NASA financial assistance, such as

grant awards from this program, may raise allegations of discrimination, including
harassment, by contacting the NASA Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. Find
information on filing a complaint through ODEO at https://missionstem.nasa.gov/filing-a-
complaint.html or send email to hq-civilrightsinfo@mail.nasa.gov or phone 202-358-
2180.

F.5-38
F.6 U SCIENCE ACTIVATION PROGRAM INTEGRATION
NOTICE: NASA does not intend to offer this program element in
ROSES this year. It is expected that this element will be solicited again
in ROSES-2024 or 2025.
1. U Scope of Program
The SMD Science Activation Program (SciAct) seeks to further enable NASA science
28TU U28T

experts and content into the learning environment more effectively and efficiently with
learners of all ages. Competitively selected teams from across the Nation work in
partnership with each other and with NASA to connect NASA science experts, real
content, and experiences with community leaders to do science in ways that activate
minds and promote deeper understanding of our world and beyond. Baselined in 2016
and assessed by the National Acadmies in 2019, SciAct is building long-term
relationships to bring NASA science to learners of all ages.
At a top level, SMD SciAct Objectives are to:
• Enable STEM Education
• Improve U.S. Scientific Literacy
• Advance National Education Goals
• Leverage Efforts through Partnerships
2. Point of Contact
Lin Chambers
Science Engagement and Partnerships Division
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: 757-864-4371
Email: lin.h.chambers@nasa.gov
28T 28T

F.6-1
F.7 SUPPORT FOR OPEN SOURCE TOOLS, FRAMEWORKS, AND LIBRARIES
NOTICE: Amended August 8, 2022. This program element, which was
previously listed as TBD, will not be solicited in ROSES-2022. It has
been deferred to ROSES-2023, which will be released in February
2023.
1. Scope of Program
Open-source software tools, frameworks, and libraries play an increasingly prominent
role in SMD-related science research and applications. As the adoption of open
software accelerates the rate of scientific discovery, the National Academies have
recognized the growing need among the NASA science community to provide sustained
support and maintenance of these types of software in their 2018 report Open Source
Software Policy Options for NASA Earth and Space Sciences.
SMD seeks proposals for the improvement and sustainment of high-value, open source
tools, frameworks, and libraries that have made significant impacts to the SMD science
community. The proposals must clearly state the process of adding extensions,
documentation, and maintenance of the software to support the user community and
should include an assessment of the potential impact to the SMD science community of
the proposed work.
2. Point of Contact
Steven Crawford
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (410) 338-6386
Email: steven.m.crawford@nasa.gov

F.7-1
F.8 SUPPLEMENTAL OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE AWARDS
NOTICE: Corrected March 28, 2022: The recommended amount for a
collaborative award in Section 2.2 has also been increased. New Text
is in bold and deleted text is struck through.
Amended March 23, 2022. The significant changes are: Division
specific guidance for the development of open-source software has
been added as Section 4 and the recommended amount for a single
award has been increased from $20K/year to $50K/year. New Text is in
bold and deleted text is struck through. Proposals may be submitted
at any time.
1. Scope of Program
Supplemental open source software awards are used to encourage the conversion of
legacy software into modern code to be released under a generally accepted, open
source license (e.g., Apache-2, BSD-2-clause, GPL). The supplement would add a
software component to an existing "parent" research and analysis award.
2. Programmatic Information
2.1 Eligibility
In order to propose an activity as a supplement to a research and analysis proposal
submitted in response to this program element, the proposer must have a research
proposal that has been selected for funding (hereinafter called the "parent award"),
through any previous SMD solicitation that has at least 15 months remaining in its
period of performance at the time of the submission of the open source software
proposal. Previous SMD solicitations include any from the Biological and Physical
Science Division. Proposals that have not yet been selected for funding are not eligible.
2.2 Funding
It is anticipated that the total available funding for the program will be up to $250K per
year. The funds will be distributed across the different Science Mission Directorate
divisions.
The recommended budget for a proposal by an individual investigator is no more than
$50K/year $20K/year. [Updated March 23, 2022] A "Collaborative Proposal" option is
available that allows several SMD-funded researchers to collectively carry out a more
ambitious, expansive open-source software program. NASA recommends that the
budget for Collaborative Proposals not exceed $50K $75K per year,
or $125K $175K over three years. [Updated March 28, 2022]
In either case, the PIs of the original parent awards must be part of the proposal, but
they do not need to lead the proposal.
To diminish administrative burden on of such small supplemental awards, funds will be
awarded as augmentations to existing awards. As a result, the total period of
performance for any open source software award is limited to that of its parent award or
three years, whichever is shorter. For a collaborative award, funds may either be added
to a single parent award or be distributed separately to each of the participating parent

F.8-1
awards. The total period of performance for the open source software award is limited to
the last expiring award involved in the consortium of proposing investigators. Funds
cannot be allocated beyond when a parent award is expected to expire. If a proposal is
submitted within 90 days after the date of the letter of selection for the parent award, the
funding will be applied to the first year of the parent award. In all other cases, the
funding will be applied to the next yearly funding supplement. If the proposal is
submitted within 90 days of the yearly anniversary, it may only be applied to the funding
for the following year.
3. Proposal Preparation [Updated March 23, 2022]
Proposal formatting must be in accordance with the instructions given in the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation. The proposal must be submitted via NSPIRES or Grants.gov
by the organization's Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). A budget and
other specified information is required.
The proposal must be contained within 3 single-spaced pages including any tables or
figures. The proposal must contain the following elements:
• A brief summary of the scientific goals of the original proposal
• A description of the software to be open sourced converted and the benefit to
the community of that software. This can either be for an entire package or an
incremental release of specific algorithms.
• A development plan that describes the required resources and how the
development will be managed. This should include any documentation, any
supporting infrastructure, and dissemination of the software to the community.
• A timeline for the development and release of the software
Refer to Table 1 of ROSES regarding requirements for biographical sketches/CVs,
statements of current and pending support for the PI and Co-Is, references, and
budget narrative.
4. Division Specific requirements
4.1 Earth Science Division
Proposers that address topics relevant to Earth Science are must follow the Earth
Science Divisions Policy on Open Source Software (see
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/collaborate/open-data-services-and-software/esds-
open-source-policy).
4.2 Heliophysics Division
Proposers that address topics relevant to Heliophysics Science are encouraged
to contribute their tools and software to the Python in Heliophysics Community
(PyHC; see http://heliopython.org/). Such proposals should agree to the PyHC
Standards
(https://github.com/heliophysicsPy/standards/blob/master/standards.md) that
include requirements to provide documentation, version control, testing,
standard packaging, and other elements intended to optimize the utility of the
results. Contributions here include code that is both natively written in Python, or
code from other open-source languages for which appropriate Python wrappers

F.8-2
can be provided that in turn adhere to PyHC standards.
5. Proposal Review and Evaluation
Proposals will be evaluated against the three evaluation criteria: Intrinsic Merit,
Relevance, and Cost, as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and as described in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
As part of the evaluation of impact, which is a factor in Merit, reviewers will assess the
potential benefit of the software to the community and the reasonableness of the
development plan in the proposal.
Proposals that are rated highly will be considered for funding prior to the close of the
call.
6. Summary Table of Key Information [Updated March 23, 2022]
Expected program budget for first ~$250K; $20K ~$50K/year per award see
year of new awards Section 2.2
Number of new awards pending ~5-10
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards Up to 3 years
Due date for Notices of Intent No Notices of Intent are requested for this
program element.
Due date for proposals Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 pm Eastern time on March 2923, 2023.
Planning date for start of At the start of the yearly funding supplement
investigation for the award.
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management 3 pp; see Section 3, above.
section of proposal
Relevance This program is relevant to the questions and
goals of the Science Mission Directorate as
described in the Science Plan. Proposals that
are relevant to this program are, by definition,
relevant to NASA.
General information and overview of See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
this solicitation
General requirements for content of Table 1 and Section IV of the ROSES
proposals Summary of Solicitation, and Section 3 of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
Detailed instructions for the See https://nspires.nasaprs.com/tutorials/
submission of proposals Sections 3.22-4.4 of the NASA Guidebook for
Proposers and Section IV(b) of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation.
Submission medium Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.

F.8-3
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposals
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Point of contact concerning this
program.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-SOSS
Steven Crawford
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: steven.m.crawford@nasa.gov
Telephone: (202) 358-1310
F.8-4
F.9 Citizen SCIENCE SEED FUNDING PROGRAM
NOTICE: Amended October 13, 2022. This amendment presents new
text for this program element. Changes are not tracked but significant
changes include: (1) The addition (in Section 5) of a suggested outline
for the Science/Technical/Management Section of proposals, (2)
Updated Points of Contact for Biological and Physical Sciences and
Heliophysics Divisions, (3) More explicit statement of the requirement
that projects be made open to new volunteers, and other changes and
clarifications throughout. The due dates are unchanged; NOIs are
requested by November 22, 2022, and proposals are due January 24,
2023.
1. Scope of Program
Citizen science is a form of open collaboration in which individuals or organizations
participate voluntarily in the scientific process. The Citizen Science Seed Funding
Program (CSSFP) of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) aims to support
scientists and other experts to develop citizen science projects and to expand the pool
of scientists who use citizen science techniques in their science investigations.
Four Divisions of the SMD are participating in the CSSFP: the Astrophysics Division, the
Biological and Physical Sciences Division, the Heliophysics Division and the Planetary
Science Division. All proposals must address one or more goal(s) or objective(s)
relevant to at least one of these participating SMD divisions. The Earth Science Division
is not participating; see below for information on citizen science projects related to Earth
Sciences. CSSFP proposals relevant to Biological and Physical Science Research
Programs must be focused on using the GeneLab and/or Physical Sciences Informatics
databases.
In SMD, "Citizen Science Projects" are defined as science projects that rely on
volunteers. In effective citizen science projects, scientists (subject matter experts) give
feedback to and receive feedback from these volunteers. Volunteer participation is
required for CSSFP funding, as is a strong science motivation of the proposed
investigation. In addition, for projects that are not already open to volunteers, proposals
must describe when and how projects will be made “open” to new volunteers (this step
is sometimes called “launching” the citizen science project). Note that the term "citizen
science" does not pertain to citizenship in any particular country, and that "citizen
scientists" may include "amateur" scientists.
The CSSFP aims to incubate citizen science projects as they are being conceived or
during critical transitions, like the year when they are first launched or beta tested (i.e.,
when the first group of volunteers is invited to try the project) or when the project
changes scientific direction. CSSFP awards require relatively short proposals to
encourage new proposers to experiment with citizen science techniques; the
Science/Technical/Management section has a limit of 6 pages.
CSSFP awards have a duration of up to one year only. Citizen science projects enabled
by this program may be eligible to apply for longer-term support via other ROSES
elements. As described in section I(i) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation, proposers

F.9-1
to any ROSES program element are invited to incorporate citizen science
methodologies into their submissions, where such methodologies will advance the
objectives of the proposed investigation. More information on proposing citizen science
projects to other ROSES elements can be found at
http://science.nasa.gov/citizenscience.
This program element solicits efforts that will lead to scientific results published in peer-
review publications, although such results may be the result of planned longer-term
activities spawned by this incubation funding.
SMD citizen science projects shall be held to the same rigorous standards as any SMD
science program. Documented project goals must include advances in science, the
merit of which shall be determined by peer review.
The CSSFP does not solicit efforts whose sole aim is to create tools for citizen science
or efforts for which the primary purpose is outreach or education, engineering or
software development. Projects that include students are welcome, as long as the main
goals of the proposed investigation are science results and not educational impacts.
The CSSFP does not support projects that are relevant to only the Earth Science
Research Program. However, the Earth Science Research Program supports citizen
science through other ROSES elements, including, in some years, Citizen Science for
Earth Systems Program.
2. Citizen Science in SMD
All CSSFP proposals must address NASA's science goals, which are discussed in
section 1(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. In addition, SMD’s citizen science
efforts have the following top-level goals. SMD's portfolio of citizen science projects
shall contribute to building a scientifically literate nation by:
i. Providing opportunities for U.S. citizen scientists;
ii. Encouraging highly educated volunteers who can benefit NASA via their expertise;
iii. Leveraging existing communities of citizen scientists or other enthusiasts for a
variety of projects; and
iv. Connecting citizen scientists with NASA Subject Matter Experts who provide role
models and mentorship.
SMD is currently funding approximately 29 active citizen science projects, involving
more than 2 million participants. More than 400 citizen scientists have become named
coauthors on scientific papers as a result of their involvement in NASA citizen science.
NASA embraces developing and growing a diverse and inclusive community of citizen
scientists in a positive and safe environment where individuals can be authentic. For a
list of active SMD citizen science projects, and more resources for developing new
projects, see the SMD citizen science website, http://science.nasa.gov/citizenscience.
Investigators are encouraged to work with the science writers/press officers at their
home institutions to publicize their citizen science projects and disseminate the results.
For more information about NASA citizen science communications, contact SMD citizen
science social media lead Kim Holloway (Kim.E.Holloway@nasa.gov).

F.9-2
SMD holds an annual workshop bringing together scientists, NASA leaders, and citizen
scientists to exchange ideas and best practices. (The first workshop, "Building the
NASA Citizen Science Community,” was held June 20-22, 2019. Additional workshops
have been held virtually from May 27, 2020 to October 31, 2022. The next in-person
workshop is planned for spring 2023.) At least one representative member of each
proposal team that receives a grant via the CSSFP is expected to participate in this
annual workshop, where they will receive training in citizen science best practices.
3. Funding and Division Representatives
The CSSFP is jointly funded by four SMD science Divisions: the Astrophysics Division,
the Biological and Physical Sciences Division, the Heliophysics Division, and the
Planetary Science Division. Each of these Divisions will select proposals for funding
based on programmatic priorities and relevance to that Division’s research program.
Cross-divisional projects are encouraged, provided that they can demonstrate relevance
to at least one ROSES element (other than CSSFP) in any of the above four Divisions,
or to any cross-divisional program as a possible source of long term support. Please
see Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022 for a full list of program elements, Points of Contact
(POC) for each Division for the CSSFP are listed in the table below. The Citizen
Science Officer (Marc Kuchner) serves as the point of contact for cross-divisional
projects.
4. Proposal Preparation and Budget Requirements
Unless otherwise stated, proposals to this program element are subject to the default
requirements in higher-level documents (e.g., F.1 The Cross Division Research
Overview, Section IV(b)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers. Guidance presented in this CSSFP program element
supercedes those default requirements. Proposals that violate these requirements may
be returned without review. As described in the NASA Guidebook for proposers, the
Science/Technical/ Management (S/T/M) section of the proposal must contain a
detailed statement of the proposed work, describe the technical approach and
methodology to be employed in conducting the proposed work, and the perceived
impact of the proposed work to the state of knowledge in the field. Projects that simply
collect data with no scientific goal or use case will be deemed non-compliant and may
be returned without review or declined after review.
Furthermore, the S/T/M section must include a discussion of how existing platforms
and/or existing enthusiast communities can be utilized to maximize the project’s impact.
Development of new platforms and/or building of new communities will be considered on
a case by case basis, and require detailed justification.
Proposals must include a thorough plan for beta testing: testing the project with a group
of citizen scientist volunteers (or another group of non-experts, e.g., students, summer
interns) to ensure data quality and positive participant experience.
A successful proposal will demonstrate that the team possesses appropriate expertise
both to conduct the science and to foster broad participation, communication and
dissemination of results, e.g., two-way communication between volunteers and
scientists, with scientists giving feedback to and receiving feedback from the volunteers.

F.9-3
Proposals must include a Data Management Plan, as described in the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and Section 2 of F.1. This Data Management Plan should
discuss data to be collected as part of the proposed long term plan (see below).
Investigators proposing citizen science projects in which participants are actively
involved in conducting observations are encouraged to read the NASA ESDS Citizen
Science Data Working Group White Paper to learn more about standards and best
practices for citizen science data collection, management and long-term archiving. Also,
note that SMD Policy SPD-33 lists "Inclusion of a sunset plan" as an evaluation element
for SMD citizen science projects. However a sunset plan is not required for CSSFP
proposals, since CSSFP funding is only for the duration of one year.
Proposals must be specific about how the proposed research is relevant to one or more
of the following SMD science Divisions: Astrophysics, Heliophysics, Planetary Science,
or Biological and Physical Sciences. Proposals that focus on Heliophysics should
address one of the high level science goals from the relevant Decadal Survey: Solar
and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society. For information on SMD's
science priorities, see SCIENCE 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence.
The duration for CSSFP awards is limited to one year. The proposal must describe both
the work to be completed during this one year of funding and also provide a long term
plan for the project. This long term plan must include a discussion of potential sources
of future NASA funding to continue the project after one year, and the plan must specify
to which other ROSES elements or other NASA funding opportunities the project would
likely be relevant in future years. Future CSSFP calls are not to be listed as sources of
future funding.
Budgets must include funds for the PI to participate in an annual "Building the NASA
Citizen Science Community" meeting, which may take place virtually (online only).
Budgets shall not include salary funding for citizen scientists/volunteers. However, since
training and communicating with citizen scientists is a necessary component of a citizen
science project, proposal budgets should include resources for accomplishing these
tasks. For example, funds may be used for graphic design, or development of trainings,
website content, newsletters, or tutorials.
Proposals that rely on an existing citizen science platform such as Anecdata, iNaturalist,
Zooniverse, etc., are encouraged to include a letter of endorsement from that platform
unless the project clearly does not require any modification or maintenance of the tools
that are already publicly available. If such a letter is not included, the proposal must
explain how the investigation is feasible with the publicly available tools. If selected, a
letter of endorsement from the platform must be provided before the award is made.
5. Suggested Outline for the Science/Technical/Management Section
These sub-sections could have any page length, as long as together they all fit within
the six-page limit for the S/T/M Section. Following this outline is suggested but not
required.
Introduction Introduce the research field at a level suitable for a non-
specialist.

F.9-4
 Science Discuss the specific science question(s) or goals to be
Question(s) addressed by the proposed investigation.
Citizen Science Describe the citizen science technique. Explain why citizen
Methodology science is the best method for addressing the science
questions. Discuss how existing platforms and/or existing
enthusiast communities can or can not be utilized to maximize
the project’s impact. Provide a plan for Beta Testing.
Long Term Plan Describe how the proposed citizen science methodology will
and Impact ultimately address the science questions. Discuss sources of
future funding to continue the project after one year. Specify to
which other ROSES elements or other NASA funding
opportunities the project would likely be relevant in future
years.
Relevance Describe how the proposed research is relevant to one or more
of the following SMD science Divisions: Astrophysics,
Heliophysics, Planetary Science, or Biological and Physical
Sciences.
Team Demonstrate that the team possesses appropriate expertise
both to conduct the science and to foster broad participation.

In addition, proposals must contain a Data Management Plan, which does not count
toward the six-page limit. See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and Section 2 of F.1.
6. Reporting and Annual Meeting Participation
In addition to the regular final report and closeout documentation required from
grantees, recipients of grants from proposals to this program element must participate in
the annual meeting noted in Section 2.
7. Proposal Review and Evaluation
Proposals will be evaluated against the three evaluation criteria: Intrinsic Merit,
Relevance, and Cost, as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and as described in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
All proposals will be first checked to ensure that they meet the requirement that the
proposed project is new or heading into a critical transition. Proposals that do not meet
all requirements may be returned without review.
7.1 Assessment of Intrinsic Merit
For proposals to this program element the evaluation of Intrinsic Merit is clarified as
follows:
A) As described in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, the evaluation of Intrinsic
Merit will include an assessment of the qualifications and capabilities of the team
members. For CSSFP, this assesment includes the extent to which the team
includes both scientists and the necessary expertise in order to foster broad
participation, communication and dissemination of results.

F.9-5
 B) As described in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, the evaluation of Intrinsic
Merit includes "the significance and/or impact of the proposed work". For the
CSSFP, this assesment includes how effectively the proposed project utilizes
existing platforms and/or existing enthusiast communities, or argues that the
creation of new communities or platforms is necessary given the many existing
platforms and communities that are available.
C) As described in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, the evaluation of Intrinsic
Merit will include "the scientific quality of the proposed project". For the CSSFP, this
includes an assessment of the plan for beta testing to ensure data quality and
positive participant experience.
7.2 Assessment of Relevance
For proposals to this program element the evaluation of relevance is clarified as follows:
A) Assessment of relevance vs. the goals, objectives and priorities of the Division(s)
to which the proposal stated it was relevant. The Division goals, objectives and
priorities for the Astrophysics Division, Heliophysics Division, and Planetary
Science Division are described in the “FY 21-22 Update” version of "SCIENCE
2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence". The relevance of proposals that
focus on Heliophysics will also be compared to the high level science goals in the
relevant Decadal Survey: Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a
Technological Society (www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13060). The
relevance of proposals that focus on Biology and Physical Sciences will be
assessed vs. the 2011 National Academies report Recapturing a Future for
Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era, and the
2018 report A Midterm Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on
Life and Physical Sciences Research at NASA.
B) Relevance will also be assessed based on how well the proposal demonstrates a
clear path from the proposed investigation to a future proposal to a different
ROSES element or other NASA funding opportunity.
8. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget Up to $720K in Astrophysics, Heliophysics and
for new awards Planetary Science combined ($80K average per
award) and up to $100K in Biological and
Physical Sciences.
Number of awards pending Up to three awards in Astrophysics, up to three
adequate proposals of merit awards in Heliophysics, up to three awards in
Planetary Science, and up to two awards in
Biological and Physical Sciences.
Maximum duration of awards Up to 1 year
Due date for optional Notice of See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Intent to propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of July 1, 2023
investigation

F.9-6
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and
overview of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Main Administrative Point of
Contact:
Division Technical Points of
Contact:
6 pages.
See Section 7, above.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
F.1 The Cross Division Research Overview and
See Table 1 and Section IV of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help and Section IV(b) of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-CSSFP
Marc Kuchner
Citizen Science Officer
Science Engagement and Partnerships Division
Telephone: (301) 286-5165
Email: marc.kuchner@nasa.gov
Hashima Hasan
Astrophysics Division
Telephone: (202) 358 0692
Email: hhasan@nasa.gov
Abigail Rymer
Heliophysics Division
Telephone: (202) 330-3190
Email: Abigail.M.Rymer@nasa.gov
Michael Kelley
Planetary Science Division
Telephone: (202) 358-0607
Email: michael.s.kelley@nasa.gov
Lisa Carnell
Biological and Physical Sciences Division
Telephone: (202) 963-9415
Email: lisa.a.scottcarnell@nasa.gov
F.9-7
F.10 PAYLOADS AND RESEARCH INVESTIGATIONS ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON
NOTICE: November 21, 2022. The duration of lunar night has been
adjusted to 354 hours in Sections 3.1 and 3.1.2. For additional
instructions please also see # 96 in the FAQ available under other
documents on the NSPIRES page for this element.
October 20, 2022. The final text has been corrected and modified to
provide updated guidance:
o The duration of lunar night has been adjusted to 348 hours in
Sections 3.1 and 3.1.2.
o Section 3.1.2 has been modified: Antennae height will be vendor
design-dependent, so proposers should identify landing sites and
targets for exploration, with the understanding that specific
science sites may need to be adjusted to accommodate different
designs. Proposals that request a destination with difficult terrain
and a complex traverse path will risk being deemed not
accommodatable. Proposers should explain why maintaining
comm with a rover at the proposed destination will not be a
challenge.
o Guidance has been provided in Section 3.1.2 for proposers that
require the CLPS vendor to acquire context imagery to meet
proposed science objectives.
o Section 3.4.1 has been updated to provide additional guidance
indicating that payloads that require special accommodations for
thermal protection to adhere to survive the night power constraints
shall include those accommodations in the proposed payload
suite, subject to the mass and resource constraints provided in the
call. The CLPS provider will not allocate more than 20 Watts to
maintain the PRISM payload suite electronics above their survival
temperature.
Corrected September 20, 2022. The Step-2 proposal due date in the
Table in Section 3.3 has been corrected.
Amended September 19, 2022: This amendment releases the final text
and due dates for this program element, which was previously
released as draft for community comment. Proposals to this program
will be submitted by a two-step process in which the Notice of Intent
is replaced by a mandatory Step-1 proposal that must be submitted by
an organization Authorized Organizational Representative. See

F.10-1
 Section 5. Step-1 proposals are due October 24, 2022, and Step-2
proposals are due December 20, 2022.
There will be a Pre-proposal Conference October 6, 2022, 3:00 pm ET
and an Inclusion Plan Best Practices Workshop November 1 and 2, 1-
3 pm ET, see Section 3.3 of this program element for details.
Additionally, this program element is participating in the Inclusion
Plan Program, see Section 5.3.1. This Inclusion Plan will not be part of
the adjectival ratings nor selection recommendations for this
opportunity.
One change of particular note is the removal of sample acquisition as
a CLPS-provided service. Complexities of sample acquisition, in
particular with contamination control concerns and interfaces
between the sample acquisition and instrument ingestion process,
increase the cost and complexity of this delivery to the potential
detriment of the science and delivery schedule.
Additional changes from the previous draft version of this program
element are detailed in the FAQ document available under other
documents on the NSPIRES page for this element.
1. Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
This third Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of the Moon (PRISM)
program element solicits proposals for an investigation that includes development and
flight of science-driven suites of instruments that will be delivered to the lunar surface by
the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS). This PRISM call is for science
investigations that will be delivered to the lunar surface in mid-Calendar Year 2027. This
delivery will go to a safe landing site (see Section 3.2) identified and justified by the
proposer that resides within ±75o of the lunar equator. Both nearside and far side
destinations are open to consideration. This PRISM call provides the opportunity to
leverage survive-the-night services and mobility services provided by the CLPS
provider. Further details for each of these services are included in the text below.
Proposed investigations must address science objectives identified in the most recently
released decadal survey or equivalent community document, as appropriate for each
science discipline. Such documents include, but are not limited to, the recently released
Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology
2023-2032, Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences
Research for a New Era Midterm Assessment, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy
and Astrophysics for the 2020s, and A Decadal Strategy for Solar and Space Physics,
as well as in the NAS Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon, the Global
Exploration Roadmap, and specifically Goals 6 and 7 from the Artemis III Science
Definition Report as they pertain to biological and physical sciences in non-polar lunar
locations.
Although the proposed PRISM payload suite must be science-driven, some technology
demonstration, development, and/or maturation within the proposed project is allowed;

F.10-2
however, proposals must show how such technology demonstrations will enhance the
overall science return. Note that one of the primary factors for selection will be the
proposer’s ability to deliver on schedule, with an expected deadline to deliver the
instrument suite to the vendor for integration with the lander of mid-year CY26.
This PRISM call is issued by SMD, thus, proposed investigations shall primarily address
SMD's objectives for the Moon. However, investigations that additionally address 1)
objectives of the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD), and
2) any technology demonstration goals of the Space Technology Mission Directorate
(STMD) that advance capabilities for science, exploration, or commercial development
of the Moon are also welcome. For context please, see ESDMD’s Artemis Plan or
Space Technology Mission Directorate Strategic Outcomes under "other documents" on
the NSPIRES page for this program element, where potential proposers may find other
documents of interest including an FAQ.
NASA recognizes and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive scientific,
engineering, and technology communities and fully expects that such values will be
reflected in the composition of all proposal teams as well as peer review panels
(science, engineering, and technology), science definition teams, and mission and
investigation teams. This opportunity is participating in SMD's inclusion plan pilot study
(see Section IV(e)ii of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation), so proposers must provide
an Inclusion Plan to detail how proposal teams will foster an inclusive environment as
they fulfill the proposed effort (see Section 5.3.1 for additional details). Early career
proposers and first-time PIs are both welcomed and encouraged. Examples of relevant
experience for first-time PIs could include experience as an instrument lead on a
mission proposal (selected or not), participation on instrument teams or in instrument
development, participation in programs such as the PI Launchpad or JPL’s Planetary
Science Summer School, and/or other related mission experience. Proposers are also
encouraged to provide early career team members with opportunities to participate in
proposal leadership roles, as well as opportunities to involve under-represented groups
in all aspects of proposal activities.
2. Background and Scope of Program
NASA's CLPS project coordinates and contracts with commercial providers to land
scientific and technology payloads on the lunar surface. CLPS is a delivery service and
may carry NASA and non-NASA payloads; thus, NASA expects to be one of many
customers on a particular lunar surface delivery. CLPS deliveries are made of two
components: instruments, such as those selected through PRISM, and Task Orders
generated through the CLPS office. Once payloads selected through this PRISM call
have been identified, NASA will finalize the delivery manifest and issue a separate
Request For Task Plan (RFTP) to procure lunar lander services from among the list of
current CLPS providers, and the selected provider will deliver the PRISM-awarded
payload suite and other NASA-sponsored payloads to the lunar surface. All Task Orders
are Firm Fixed Price for the full scope of delivery, which necessitates mature payload
interfaces and requirements at the outset of the RFTP process. Several factors drive
delivery costs, including, but not limited to, lander delivery schedule, landing site terrain,

F.10-3
and accommodation (e.g., mass, power, communications, timing and duration of
operations, special needs of the instruments, etc.) of the payloads. Therefore, payloads
that grow to exceed proposed not-to-exceed (NTE) mass, resource use, or costs, or
become at-risk to meeting the lander delivery schedule after selection will be subject to
descopes or termination review.
PRISM is SMD's primary mechanism for identifying payloads to be delivered through
CLPS. Separate NASA payloads acquired through directed work, international
contributions, or solicitations specific to other NASA mission directorates may be co-
manifested with PRISM investigations. At this time, no co-manifested payloads have
been identified for the delivery relevant to this call. We will update this call to include
identified co-manifested payloads as needed to promote complementary research and
reduce redundancies in proposed investigations where possible.
2.1 Eligibility to Propose
Participation in this program follows the ROSES rules outlined in the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation with one further restriction regarding foreign participation:
Proposals from Non-U.S. Organizations will not be accepted. However, international
participation is welcomed as team members or hardware providers on a no-exchange of
funds basis. The cost of foreign participation may be up to one third of the total cost of
the investigation. Proposals shall include a discussion of the scale of the internationally
contributed instruments, how the proposed contribution is consistent with the
Exploration Science Strategy and Integration Office's policy that the contribution does
not exceed approximately one-third of the investigation cost, and how the programmatic
risks (e.g., schedule delays that impact integration dates onto lander, etc.) associated
with the contribution will be handled.
3. Proposal Information
3.1 Available CLPS-Provided Services [Corrected 10/2022, and 11/21/22]
This program element solicits instrument suites to conduct investigations that address
high priority science objectives identified in active discipline decadal surveys and
community documents identified in Section 1. In this program element, a "suite" is
defined as two or more separate payload elements that work together to achieve the
investigation's objectives. Destination agnostic, campaign (i.e., activities that require
several landings to accomplish the science objectives), and non-suite investigations are
not a part of this call, but may be solicited in future PRISM calls.
The CLPS delivery platform for this PRISM call will offer two classes of services to
proposers: surviving the lunar night and mobility. Note that proposals are not required to
use either of these offered services, and should only include the service(s) that is/are
needed to achieve proposed science objectives. Mission complexity remains a part of
the evaluation; in general, simpler operations that achieve science objectives will be
more accommodatable by the CLPS vendor.
Details of each service are included below; at a high level, the lander will be able to
support two lunar days of operations, supporting night survival through at least one non-
polar lunar night (i.e., 354 hours duration updated 11/21/22). Note that this threshold
F.10-4
service is expected to support survival, not operation, of instruments through the lunar
night, except in special cases noted in the “goal” survive-the-night service description
below. Proposals may also propose to use CLPS-provided services as required to
achieve the proposed science objectives.
The scope for each of the available services is provided below, with Threshold and Goal
Services described, accompanied by specific information proposers must include for
each requested service. Proposers may propose to utilize any of these services
required to achieve proposed science objectives, with the understanding that Threshold
Services are expected to be readily available, while Goal Services are not guaranteed
and are predicated on the capabilities of the CLPS providers as well as on budget
availability. For each service type included in the proposal, proposers must describe
science objectives, including both minimum and full mission success criteria, that are
addressable with the Threshold Service. Proposers can also propose to use available
extended Goal Service capabilities, as long as the proposal compellingly justifies why
that extended service is needed to achieve the proposed science objectives. For all
services included in proposals, proposers must provide specifications for what
capabilities and resources are required to achieve proposed science objectives, and the
selected CLPS provider will be contract-bound to accommodate those requirements.
The complexities of sample acquisition, in particular with contamination control
concerns and interfaces between the sample acquisition and instrument ingestion
process, increase the cost and complexity of this delivery to the potential detriment of
the science and delivery schedule. Therefore, sample acquisition is no longer offered as
a vendor-provided service. Those proposals that require sample acquisition to achieve
science objectives should include a sample acquisition mechanism in the proposed
payload suite, subject to mass, resource, and cost constraints in Section 3.4. Mission
complexity remains a part of the evaluation; in general, simpler operations that achieve
science objectives will be more accommodatable by the CLPS vendor.
3.1.1 Survive-the-Night Services
Threshold Service: Operate the instrument suite for two lunar days, including survival
through one lunar night. There will be no night operations supported in the threshold
mission. Proposers shall propose science objectives that can be accomplished within
this threshold mission duration, and with no night operations.
Goal Service: Operate through up to six lunar days, including survival through up to five
lunar nights. Additionally, there is the possibility to support limited operation through a
lunar night(s) provided that payload suites remain within night keep-alive power
restrictions, including peak and sustained electric and thermal power draws, as detailed
in Section 3.4. For night operations, CLPS landers will not provide any data storage or
communications services, inclusive of any telemetry, data transfer, or commanding
communications. Payloads must store any acquired data locally and wait for the lander
to reawaken to transmit data.
Required Information from Proposer Specific to this Service: In addition to other
instrument suite specifications and proposal components detailed elsewhere in this call,

F.10-5
proposers must provide the following information if leveraging survive-the-night
services:
• Compelling justification for why survive-the-night services are required and how
many nights are required to achieve proposed science objectives;
• Keep-alive (and operational, if applicable) power requirements for each
instrument in the suite, including peak and sustained electric and thermal power
draws;
• Keep-alive temperatures for each instrument in the suite; and
• Compelling justification, if relevant, for why specific science instruments need to
operate during the night to achieve proposed science objectives
3.1.2 Mobility Services [Corrected 10/2022, and 11/21/22]
Threshold Service: Mobile services provided for a radial distance of up to 1.5 km from
the lander, with operations lasting one lunar day (i.e., 354 hours of sunlit time; nighttime
operations are not supported for mobility). [duration updated 11/21/22]
Goal Service: Mobile services provided for a distance of up to 1.5 km from the lander,
with operations extending multiple lunar days, with night survival resources provided by
the CLPS provider/lander. Night operations are not available even for Goal mobility
services.
Required Information from Proposer Specific to this Service: In addition to other
instrument suite specifications and proposal components detailed elsewhere in this call,
a proposer must provide the following information if leveraging mobility services:
• Compelling justification for why mobility services are required to achieve
proposed science objectives, and how science would be enhanced through use
of mobility survive-the-night services, if applicable.
• Demonstration that all science sites of interest are within line-of-site of proposed
safe landing sites, with traverses that avoid significant topographic barriers (for
reference, VIPER traverses are limited to 15o slopes).
o Although antenna heights will be vendor design-specific, for the purposes of
the proposal, assume a height of 1 m for the rover, with the understanding
that specific science sites may need to be adjusted to accommodate different
designs. [Corrected October 20, 2022]
o Antennae height will be vendor design-dependent, so proposers should
identify landing sites and targets for exploration, with the understanding
that specific science sites may need to be adjusted to accommodate
different designs. Proposals that request a destination with difficult
terrain and a complex traverse path will risk being deemed not
accommodatable. Proposers should explain why maintaining comm
with a rover at the proposed destination will not be a challenge.
• If survive-the-night services are invoked, the proposal must include
o Keep-alive power requirements for each instrument in the suite, including
peak and steady-state electric and thermal power draws
o Keep-alive temperature requirements for each instrument in the suite
• Concept of operations for the rover, including details for
F.10-6
 o Duration and frequency of proposed payload operations, including details for
when each instrument would be operating, to demonstrate that proposed
operations would remain within resource requirements detailed in Section 3.4;
o How far, with how many stops, the rover would be expected to drive, and
resulting requirements for rover speeds. Excessive speeds will be deemed
more difficult to accommodate. For reference, Mars science rover traverse
speeds are ~0.12 km/hr.
Proposers may require the CLPS vendor to acquire context imagery if they are
required to meet your science objectives. Proposals that include this requirement
must indicate requirements of the imagery (e.g., resolution, pointing/field of view
constraints, expected concept of operations), and it will be up to the CLPS
provider to identify appropriate cameras to accommodate requirements. Cameras
identified by the vendor to meet context imagery requirements will not count
towards your mass cap. That said, asking for more than ~2 or so cameras with
excessive data acquisition rates and volumes is likely to negatively impact
accommodability scores. While the mass may not count towards the mass cap,
the data rates will count towards the data resource caps and requested data rates
shall comply with the provided guidance for resource constraints. [Corrected
October 20, 2022]
3.2 PRISM 3 Landing Destination, Cost Caps, and Mass Caps
This delivery will go to the safe destination identified and justified in the proposal,
anywhere on the Moon between 75oN and 75oS, with the exception that investigations
must be designed to avoid deployments and activities (e.g., with the CLPS-provided
mobility asset) within 2 km of sensitive areas. Sensitive areas include (non-polar)
permanently shadowed regions and sites of previous or on-going national or
international landed lunar missions. Proposals must identify and justify a single,
contiguous destination that contains at least 3 safe sites for landing. For the purposes of
this call, NASA defines a safe, accommodatable landing site as having slopes <10 o with
no observable hazards >5 m in diameter (including craters and boulders) within a 100 m
diameter landing ellipse as observed in the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera
(LROC) “WAC Mosaic + NACs” basemap and Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA)
“SLDEM2015 Slope (+LOLA)” layer in LRO’s Quickmap tool. Hazards should be
assessed using LROC NAC images with incidence angles between 20o and 60o when
available. Proposals are required to demonstrate that any of the proposed landing sites
within the destination of interest would allow the proposed science goals to be met. In
the event that the lunar feature identified as the target destination extends poleward of
these latitude boundaries, the proposed landing sites must all fall equator-ward of 75
degrees N/S to be within scope of the PRISM 3 call. Proposals will be evaluated, in part,
on scientific merit of the proposed investigation(s), how well the proposed destination
supports achievement of the proposed science objectives, and how accommodatable
the proposed destination and payload suite are for all CLPS providers. The final specific
coordinates of the landing site will be finalized after the delivery manifest is confirmed
and will be defined in the RFTP released to CLPS providers.

F.10-7
NASA plans to provide funding for instrument development and flight through Principal
Investigator (PI)-led lunar-surface science investigations under a not-to-exceed cost
cap. Proposed investigations, including all mission phases A-F, must not exceed $50M
in real-year dollars (inclusive of a minimum of 20% reserves). Proposals shall include a
general assessment of cost risks and risk mitigation strategies, including those
associated with supply chain and inflation issues. More suites may be selected if the
total cost remains below the overall PRISM cost cap for this delivery ($50M total). Thus,
lower-cost investigations and cost-efficient operations are encouraged.
Because proposers may propose to use survive-the-night services provided by the
CLPS lander, this PRISM call is not open to responses that propose the use of
radioisotope heat sources. However, this solicitation does allow for proposals to
baseline use of minor radiological sources for science instrumentation. Certain
proposals that incorporate radiological sources for science instrumentation may need to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in which case the proposer
may be advised to carry $100k in their proposed budget. Please contact the NASA
NEPA Manager, by phone or email if you have questions concerning NASA
environmental compliance requirements. The NASA NEPA Manager phone number and
email address may be found at http://www.nasa.gov/agency/nepa/NEPATeam.html.
Proposals shall provide notional mass numbers coupled to a Not-To-Exceed (NTE)
mass threshold (see Section 3.4 for more information on technical requirements).
Proposed suites are limited to masses of 50 kg, including appropriate mass reserves.
Further discussion of mass reserves are included in Section 3.4. The allocation of mass
reserves shall be justified in the proposal. Should proposers opt to use mobility
services, mass allocations for the payloads hosted on the mobility asset come out of the
50 kg overall mass limit and will be limited to a NTE mass of 15 kg. Proposers may use
any remaining mass available under the NTE 50 kg total cap towards payloads on the
lander. For example, should a proposal include 14 kg of payloads on the rover, the 36
kg remaining under the 50 kg mass cap can be allocated to payloads on the lander.
Note that for each instrument sub-suite (e.g., the rover instrument sub-suite and the
lander instrument sub-suite), mass allocations must include appropriate margins and
must be tied to NTE masses that fall below each identified mass cap. Proposals must
clearly state all interface requirements for all proposed instruments. Section 3.4 below
highlights the types of information that shall be provided.
The selected investigation may be co-manifested with other PRISM or unrelated
payloads on each lander. At the time of this draft, no other payloads have been pre-
manifested on this delivery.
3.3 PRISM 3 Proposal Schedule
The time frame for the solicitation of PRISM is:
Pre-proposal Conference* October 6, 2022, 3:00 pm ET
Inclusion Plan Best Practices Workshop** November 1 and 2, 1-3 pm ET
Step-1 Proposals due October 24, 2022

F.10-8
 Step-1 Decisions <7 days after Step-1 deadline
Step-2 Proposals due December 20, 2022
Selection ~6 months after Step-2 due date
Target Suite/Lander Integration Between Apr 2026 – Oct 2026
(Estimated ~12 months before launch)
Target Landing Between Apr 2027 – Oct 2027
* The connect information for the Pre-proposal Conference is:
Join from the meeting link
https://nasaenterprise.webex.com/nasaenterprise/j.php?MTID=ma1ec750f5a550bfb1e5
70fd47336b4da
Join by meeting number
Meeting number (access code): 2761 344 9004
Meeting password: yGVbWvw@384
** To register for the Inclusion Plan Best Practices Workshop, go to the USRA Meeting
Portal, create an account, and click on "register" once the Inclusion Plan Workshop
appears in the list of upcoming events. Registrants will receive emails from “Houston
Meeting Info” with details of the event, including final agenda and connection
information.
3.4 PRISM Payload Technical Requirements
Investigations proposed must be accommodated by landing service providers who will
be contracted through NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services. The commercial
service provider will be competitively selected after PRISM awards have been made, so
PRISM investigations must be lander agnostic and utilize common interfaces where
possible. Proposed suites shall not exceed 50 kg, including any required
accommodation hardware. Proposals shall also not exceed the $50M cost cap, inclusive
of reserves, and shall include a discussion of cost risks and risk mitigation strategies,
including risks associated with supply chain and inflation issues. Additionally, proposals
shall provide notional mass numbers coupled to a Not-To-Exceed (NTE) mass
threshold. Payload suites that exceed these mass and cost thresholds after award may
be subject to a termination review or undergo descoping options. Proposals must
include a plan for mass control, justifying that there is sufficient mass margin given the
maturity of the proposed investigation. An alternative mass and cost control strategy
could include proposing potential technical descopes that can be used to preserve
mass, cost, power, schedule, or other resources. Proposals that use descopes as a
resource control strategy must describe associated impacts on proposed science
objectives. Such a descope plan shall meaningfully mitigate mass/resource-growth risks
and include timeframes for when the execution of descope options expire.
3.4.1 General Tenants for Proposed Investigations [Corrected October 20, 2022]
• Use common and contemporary standards (see 3.4.2 for examples).
F.10-9
• Reduce operational complexity (number of modes, number of mode transitions).
• Maintain appropriate, but not excessive, mass margins.
• Reduce demand on resources, especially at critical times.
o For operations during launch and descent mission phases, avoid any
resource requests beyond survival unless the payload’s priority purpose is to
operate during those mission phases.
• Avoid the need for any non-essential operation/monitoring/access.
• State what data rate is required for acquisition and transmission, within
reasonable limits (see 3.4.2). Describe whether the data rate needs to be
continuous and, if so, how long continuous data is needed.
• Document clear contamination requirements for each instrument, as needed.
• Minimize risk to other payloads or the CLPS lander. Document hazards
associated with doing harm to other payloads or the CLPS lander. There may be
provider-dependent do-no-harm requirements levied in addition to the individual
payload do-no-harm requirements. Do-no-harm mitigations will require payload
testing for verification.
• Design to meet GSFC-STD-7000 General Environments Verification Standard
• For the purposes of this proposal, use SLS-SPEC-159 Rev I, Cross Program
Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE) as source data for
expected lunar environment.
• If needed resources are mode-dependent, be very clear about usage peaks,
phasing, averages, durations, etc.
• Include handling requirements for proposed instruments and any protective
covers or special mechanical ground support equipment, as necessary.
• The CLPS provider will be compliant to all safety requirements imposed by the
Range, the FAA, and others. The CLPS provider will require the support of
payloads to identify and mitigate hazards and to provide supporting
documentation.
o See Air Force Space Command Manual (AFSPCMAN) 91-710.
• Payloads should avoid hazardous materials, designs, and operations and shall
provide hazard analyses, mitigations, and document support as needed.
• Proposed landing regions must include at least three safe landing site locations.
For the purposes of this call, NASA defines a safe, accommodatable landing site
as having, within a landing ellipse of 100 m diameter:
o Slopes < 10o and
o No observable hazards > 5m in diameter (including craters and boulders) as
observed in LROC NAC images with incidence angles between 20 o and 60o,
when available, as observed in the LROC “WAC Mosaic + NACs” basemap
and LOLA “SLDEM2015 Slope (+ LOLA)” layer in LRO Quickmap. The final
specific coordinates of the landing site will be negotiated between NASA, the
selected payload(s), and the selected lander provider based on science
needs, capabilities of the lander, and safety requirements.
• Proposers that include payloads that survive the night should perform a
simple energy balance to ensure that the notional payload design

F.10-10
 (radiators, MLI, etc…) can maintain night survival temperatures with no
more than 20 Watts total of either thermal conductance or electrical energy
from the CLPS lander. Payloads that require special accommodations for
thermal protection shall include that in the proposed payload suite, subject
to the mass and resource constraints provided in the call. The CLPS
provider will not allocate more than 20 Watts to maintain the PRISM
payload suite electronics above their survival temperature.
3.4.2 Interface Guidelines
As with most spaceflight hardware, responders shall aim to minimize the resource
requirements (mass, power, volume, cost, etc.) necessary to support the proposed
payload. As accommodation by the CLPS provider drives delivery costs, feasibility and
accommodability of the proposed PRISM payloads will be a factor in the evaluation (see
Section 7). Proposers shall consider guidelines for experiment design and interface with
the landers and provided rovers. All instruments proposed for the lander must fall within
lander communication, power, and thermal limits for the lander noted below. Proposers
should note that these are guidelines, and proposers shall propose what they need, with
justification, to achieve their science. However, if proposed requirements significantly
exceed these guidelines, proposals will be evaluated accordingly on accommodability.
Interface guidelines include:
• Communications:
o Wired RS-422 for both Lander and Rover
o Wireless: 2.4 GHz IEE 801.11n for both Lander and Rover
o Data Rate Downlink: average rate of ~300 kbps during operations (minimum
downlink rate of 18 out of every 24 hours) for both Lander and Rover
• Power:
o 28Vdc Unregulated for both Lander and Rover
o Minimize number of power channels for both Lander and Rover (e.g., <4
preferred, unless more are justified to address compelling science objectives)
o 150 Watts Maximum Steady State Power for Stationary Lander
o Less than 200 Watts Startup Transient Power for Stationary Lander
o 20 Watts of Keep-Alive Power for All Payloads, inclusive of electric and
thermal management
o 25 Watts Maximum Steady State Power for Rover while Driving
o 50 Watts Maximum Steady State Power for Rover while Stationary
• Thermal for both Lander and Rover:
o Mounting – Adiabatic (Acceptable – must specify radiation FOV)
o Mounting – Conductive (Acceptable – must specify dissipation)
• Structural Guidance for both Lander and Rover:
o Random and Sine Vibe: General Environmental Verification Standard (GEVS)
levels
o Shock and Acoustics (GEVS)
Proposals shall document which requirements/capabilities will be provided by the
PI/suite vs which need to be provided by the lander (e.g., thermal control, data storage,

F.10-11
etc.). Proposers may levy accommodations requirements that are needed to do the
highest quality science, but are reminded that accomodatability will be a factor in the
evaluation (see Section 7). Significantly increased requirements placed on the CLPS
provider may negatively affect accommodability scores. Additional capabilities that are
provided by the proposer are allowable, as long as they fit within the mass and budget
constraints for this delivery.
If a required capability is provided by the PI/suite, the cost shall be included in the
proposed cost; if the required capability is expected to be provided by the lander, the
requirements for that capability shall be explicitly stated in the proposal, and the cost will
not be included in the proposal but will be a factor in the evaluation. Booms, gimbals,
and sample acquisition mechanisms if required, shall be provided by the suite, subject
to mass, resource, and cost constraints in this solicitation. Additionally, proposals shall
document their environmental test approach in accordance with the General
Environmental Verification Standard (GEVS; GSFC-STD-7000A) or better.
3.4.3 Interface/Concept of Operations Details
Proposals shall document expected suite mass and dimensions, and as many
interface/concept of operations (conops) requirements as possible with special
consideration given to the following, if applicable:
• Payload structural load limits
• Payload thermal conditioning requirements (operating/non-operating temperature
limits, survival heater power, lander/payload thermal interface, etc.)
• Payload uplink and downlink communication requirements (volume, bandwidth,
etc.)
• Payload data storage requirements (data stored on payload, data storage
requirement on the lander, etc.)
• Payload communication interfaces and formats (wired, wireless, interface port(s),
etc.)
• Payload power requirements (number of power channels, nominal, peak, power
conditioning, etc.) and any grounding requirements
• Payload pointing, field-of-view, or orientation requirements
• Payload configuration on the lander requirements (e.g., deployment on the end of
a boom, deployment from lander, distance from the lunar surface, etc.), inclusive
of pyrolytic and non-pyrolytic activation devices, and how they would be activated
• Payload mechanical interface(s) and launch lock requirements, if any
• Payload optical sensitivities (dust, chemicals, line-of-sight to the Sun, etc.) and
keep out zones for sensor operation, if applicable
• Payload cleanliness requirements (e.g., organic contamination, particulates,
magnetic cleanliness, EM shielding, etc.)
• Payload-unique time synchronization requirements
• Payload operational timeline (operation during transit, operation during lunar
orbit, etc.)
• Special handling and storage requirements
• Payload conops considerations (e.g., cruise phase/descent phase operations,
local time operational constraints)
F.10-12
 Upon award, NASA will work with the PI to produce specific interface information of
selected investigations that will be given to the field of CLPS providers to enable
them to bid on the delivery task. CLPS task orders are Firm Fixed Price contracts, so
interface requirements need to be as mature as possible going into PRISM
submission, with sufficient margins added to incorporate unknowns.
3.5 PRISM Deliverables to the Selected CLPS Provider
After selection of the CLPS provider, selected PRISM team(s) will be expected to
provide specific deliverables to the CLPS provider, with preliminary versions created at
payload Preliminary Design Review (PDR), if applicable, and updated at Critical Design
Review (CDR) and System Integration Review/Acceptance Review (SIR/AR). These
deliverables to the lander provider shall be included in proposed work scope and
include:
• Concept of Operations
• Command and Telemetry Dictionary/Database inputs; Command scripts
• 3D CAD Model; Attachment/Integration interface bolt pattern drawing; Pinout,
connector and grounding diagram
• Hazard Report (including conditions and controls)
• Payload Operations Manual (includes integration, functional checkouts and flight
operations)
• Structural FEM
• Structural Analysis
• Vibration Analysis and Test Report (Modal Characterization, Random Vibe and
Sine Vibe required)
• Thermal Math Model and Analysis
• Material Outgassing Report showing materials meet < 1% TML and < 0.1%
CVCM; Data submitted from MAPTIS can substitute for test
• Any unique instrumentation needed to measure lander environment during
integration, GSE, handling equipment, if needed
• Payload Software Emulator
• EMI Test Report; MIL STD 461G RE102 and CE102 only required testing
• TVAC Test Report (4 Thermal Cycles at payload level)
• ICD inputs/updates (Appendix A is source for ICD)
4. PRISM Management Process
NASA intends to maintain an essential degree of oversight of the selected PRISM
project(s) after selection and, to that end, has designated the Planetary Missions
Program Office (PMPO) at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) to serve as the
principal project management interface with the selected teams throughout the project
lifecycle. Management oversight and reviews will be as set forth in Sections 4.1 and 4.2
of this program element. PRISM investigations are research and technology projects
just like all other ROSES investigations, not space flight projects. Management
requirements for research projects are fully documented in NASA Procedural
Requirements document NPR7120.8A. For the purposes of this solicitation, PMPO is

F.10-13
firewalled off from the rest of MSFC; thus, no conflict of interest exists for proposers
from MSFC.
The selected proposal(s) will be shared with the NASA Project Scientist for this delivery,
to facilitate coordination efforts between the selected instrument suite(s) and the CLPS
provider.
4.1 Management Oversight and Reporting
Organizations selected for awards in response to proposals to this program element
shall report to PMPO on a monthly basis. Monthly reporting and reviews will cover the
project accomplishments, technical status, risk, cost and schedule status, and other
topics relevant to the accomplishment of the project. The projects will perform risk
management that complies with NPR 8000.4.
Proposals shall include a Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) Plan describing the
approach and requirements being implemented for SMA. Institutional SMA
requirements may be used for the PRISM projects. Selected investigations shall submit
a hazard analysis to the PMPO that will include personnel safety during ground
activities, hardware safety during flight operations, and any planetary protection
concerns based on the latest NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) for Planetary
Missions, specifically NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8715.128 and subsequent
updated policies. If selected investigations have a Quality Management System that
meets the intent of SAE AS9100 or ISO 9001, no additional quality requirements will be
imposed. Otherwise, an equivalency assessment of the institutional system will be
required. NASA is not imposing reliability requirements.
4.2 Documentation and Gate Reviews
Within ~one month following selection, the selected PRISM project(s) are required to
submit investigation accommodation information and interface/conops requirements to
PMPO for inclusion within the solicitation to the CLPS providers for the delivery task
order (see example under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program
element). Within 3 months following selection, the PRISM project(s) are required to
deliver to PMPO a Project Plan, comprising an agreement between the PI and NASA on
science objectives (including minimum and full mission success criteria as included in
the proposal), implementation approach, resources, cost, reviews, schedule, and other
plans. A project plan template may be found in Appendix G of NPR 7120.8A. PMPO will
work with the selected investigation PI on the content of the project plan after selection,
which will include a Project Protection Plan.
Gate reviews will be conducted by the Independent Assessment Team (IAT), in
accordance with the Terms of Reference document. The draft schedule shall be
contained in the Project Plan. Decision Authority for these gate reviews is the Deputy
Associate Administrator for Exploration at NASA HQ SMD. If the project is at a
Technology Readiness Level below 6, a Preliminary Design Review will be the first gate
review. Regardless of TRL, all projects will conduct a Critical Design Review (CDR). For
projects beyond TRL 6, CDR will be the first gate review and no PDR is required.
Following the first gate review, either PDR or CDR, the project will participate in a Key

F.10-14
Decision Point review where the project will be approved to proceed. Additionally, a
System Integration Review combined with an Acceptance Review will be a required
gate review with the IAT. The Project Plan will document the review plan based on the
hardware maturity and must be approved prior to the first gate review. Selected PRISM
projects will support these independent reviews and outbriefs to NASA HQ.
Within 90 days of the completion of the investigation's surface operations, projects will
submit a report to the PMPO Manager that documents the accomplishments, operations
and technical performance of the hardware including any failures and lessons learned.
The Flight Phase will end within 6 months of the completion of surface operations. Prior
to the end of the cooperative agreement (see Section 8), data archiving will be complete
and a memo documenting the accomplishment of mission success criteria will be
submitted to the PMPO Manger and subsequently signed by the NASA HQ Program
Scientist. A closeout review (Key Decision Point) may be conducted at the discretion of
the Decision Authority.
Specific data deliverables to PMPO that shall be included in proposed work scope
include:
• Appendix A (to CLPS office)
• Project Plan
• Mission Assurance Plan (can be included in Project Plan)
• 533M
• 533Q
• Monthly Status Reports
• Mishaps & Safety Statistics Reporting
• Technology Reports
• Final Scientific and Technical Report
• Science Data collected during mission (PDS Archiving)
• Flight Hardware and Acceptance Data Package
Note that lander integration, integrated lander testing, launch operations, and mission
operations are all conducted virtually (mission operations conducted at payload facility).
Any additional proposed travel must be described and justified in the proposal.
4.3 Cost and Continuation Assessment
Should a project be significantly over budget and/or behind schedule at any time such
that it represents an appreciable risk to project success, or if the project is unable to
accomplish one or more of its proposed science objectives, a cost and continuation
assessment will be performed to determine whether the project should continue and, if
continuation is approved, how the project can increase its probability of success within
its approved cost and schedule. Such a review would involve updating the mass control
plan described above, including the impact to science objectives of any descopes. If the
cost and continuation assessment indicates that the project cannot succeed on the
planned budget and schedule, then NASA may terminate the cooperative agreement in
whole or in part consistent with 2 CFR § 200.339.

F.10-15
5. Proposal Requirements
5.1 Step-1 of the Two-Step Proposal Process
This program element uses a two-step proposal submission process, as described in
Section 2 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview. Proposers are
reminded that Step-1 proposals are mandatory and must be submitted by the proposing
organization by the due date specified above and in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES-2022.
Step-1 proposals shall include, at a minimum, the key science objectives to be
addressed, the suite of instruments proposed to address those objectives, the proposed
landing destination, and the CLPS-provided services expected to be included in the
Step-2 proposal.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names and contact information of up to
five experts qualified to review their proposal in response to the appropriate NSPIRES
cover page question when submitting your Step-1 proposal. These experts must not be
from the institutions of the PI or Co-Is or stand to benefit from the selection financially or
otherwise of the proposal. NASA does not commit to using these individuals as proposal
reviewers but will consider all suggestions.
Step-1 proposals will be either encouraged or discouraged, but detailed feedback will
not be provided. See C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview, for
information on restrictions on changes between Step-1 and Step-2 proposals.
5.2 General Requirements
For PRISM payloads, total cost (i.e., from initiation through data archiving) allowed
under this program are required not to exceed $50M in real-year dollars. The PRISM
award(s) is expected to cover all phases of the proposed investigation, typically
including payload development and construction, instrument integration and calibration,
support for the team through launch/operations, publication of results, and data
analysis/dissemination/archiving. The PI institution is expected to fund participating Co-
Investigators via subawards, except when the Co-Is are at a government laboratory or
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
There may be rare instances where a fee may be allowable in accordance with Title 2
Grants and Agreements, such as (though not limited to) instances described in 2CFR
200.324 Contract cost and price. Fees that may be allowable in these specific instances
for cooperative agreements are expected to be included in proposal budgets and must
fall under the cost cap for this opportunity. Grants Officers (GO) at NASA Shared
Services Center will have the final word on all and any costs in the budget, including
any fee or profit proposed for subawards or subcontracts.
The selected investigation(s) must be delivered to the CLPS provider approximately 12
months prior to expected launch date to be eligible for integration on the lander.
5.3 Step-2 Proposal Content Requirements
The Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section of PRISM proposals shall be at
most 30 pages long, including figures and tables but not including the additional
sections (see below) outside of the S/T/M page limit. With the exception of the S/T/M

F.10-16
page limit, these proposals follow guidelines in the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation and the 2022 NASA Guidebook for Proposers. ROSES standard is that
proposals shall be no larger than 25 MB. Step-2 Proposals must follow all formatting
requirements that are described in program element C.1 and in the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation. Violation of these formatting rules is grounds for a proposal to be returned
without review.
A notional breakdown of content that shall be included in the submitted proposal
document is as follows:
• Executive Summary (1-page limit) – must include all sections in the template
provided in "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element;
not included in overall page count and to precede the proposal table of contents
o Do not include the total project cost in the executive summary, as it must not
be viewable by the evaluation panelists. The total cost will be included in the
submitted full (non-redacted) budget.
• Proposal Table of Contents (as needed)
• S/T/M (30-page limit)
o Science Plan
o Payload Technical Plan
o Management Plan, including key personnel and their responsibilities
• References – as needed and not included in overall page count
• Additional Required Content – not included in 30-page S/T/M limit, include:
o Data Management Plan (2-page limit)
o Inclusion Plan Package (see Section 5.3.1):
▪ Inclusion Plan description (3-page limit)
▪ Inclusion Plan References (as needed)
▪ Inclusion Plan Letters of Support (as needed)
o Schedule, including visual and description of the critical path (no page limit)
o Technical, schedule, and cost risks and associated mitigation strategy for
each risk identified (no page limit)
o Table of Work Effort (as needed)
o Redacted Budget Justification (as needed)
A two-page Data Management Plan (DMP) must be included following the References,
not subject to the 30-page limit for the S/T/M section. The DMP shall include a
discussion of the plans for project management and for archiving of the data (as
described in Section 3.7 of C.1, the Planetary Science Research Program Overview),
consistent with SMD data management and archiving requirements. The investigation
team shall make all data fully available to the public through the Planetary Data System
or an equivalent, NASA-approved archive in readily usable form in the minimum time
necessary, but, barring exceptional circumstances, within six months following the end
of the investigation’s data acquisition. The DMP shall follow the guidance provided in
Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
Each proposal shall clearly define its science goals and objectives and explicitly identify
the relevant Decadal Survey or other community document objectives the investigation

F.10-17
will address (see Section 1). The proposals shall demonstrate how the science
objectives map into high-level science requirements and shall show how the science
requirements subsequently map into the measurement and instrument performance
requirements and, as relevant, into the platform performance requirements. The
proposals shall include a Science Traceability Matrix within the S/T/M section per the
example found below, in Table F.10-1 of this program element, below. Technology
demonstration payload measurements must support the proposed science investigation.
Proposals shall designate and name all key management team members, including a
Deputy PI and project manager (PM) (both of which are required), and all Co-
Investigators (Co-Is). Proposals shall describe the role of each Co-I in the development
of the investigation and justify the necessary nature of each role. These roles shall be
mapped to a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) as outlined in Appendix I of
NPR7120.8A. Excessively large teams of Co-Investigators and Collaborators are
discouraged.
Table F.10-1. Example Science Traceability Matrix
A. B. C. Investigation Objective Requirements Mission Top Level
Science Science Requirements
Measurement Requirement Projected
Objectives Questions Performance
Objective # Question # Examples: Examples:
Observing strategies:
Objective # Question # Temporal XX Sec. XXX Sec. requires yaw and
Resolution elevation maneuvers.
Etc. Etc.
Launch window: to
Etc.
meet nadir and limb
Precision YY% YYY% overlap
requirements.
Accuracy ZZ % ZZZ% Window applies day
to day.
Projects must comply with NASA export control requirements per NPD 2190.1 Export
Control Program. If the proposal contains export-controlled material, proposers must
answer affirmatively to the ITAR questions in the Program Specific Data section of the
NSPIRES cover page. Moreover, the ITAR material shall be presented in a red font or
enclosed in a red-bordered box, and the following statement shall be prominently
displayed as the first page of the uploaded PDF proposal document and will not count
toward the proposal's page limits:
"The information (data) contained in [insert page numbers or other identification] of this
proposal is (are) subject to U.S. export laws and regulations. It is furnished to the
Government with the understanding that it will not be exported without the prior approval
of the proposer under the terms of an applicable export license or technical assistance
agreement. The identified information (data) is (are) printed in a red font and figure(s)
and table(s) containing the identified information (data) is (are) placed in a red-bordered
box."

F.10-18
 5.3.1 Inclusion Plan
Inclusion is a core NASA value, exemplified by NASA in the Administrator’s recently
released policy statement on this Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA).
Additionally, Strategy 4.1 of “Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence”
states: “Increase the diversity of thought and backgrounds represented across the entire
SMD portfolio through a more inclusive environment.” This strategy clearly underscores
the importance of DEIA in NASA’s work.
NASA values the strengths of an increasingly diverse and inclusive workforce and aims
to fully engage varied talents, ideas, and perspectives; moving toward this goal is one of
the Agency’s highest priorities.
This solicitation defines inclusion as the full participation, belonging, and contribution of
groups and individuals within an organization or endeavor. Inclusion requires that
everyone's contributions be valued, that individuals, regardless of the diversity
dimension, can do their best work and advance.
By fostering an atmosphere of inclusion and respect for all, we value the strengths
afforded by both our commonalities and differences with an aim to fully engage varied
talents, ideas, and perspectives. Projects that offer an opportunity to use and empower
the nation's diverse talent pool and increase its participation in science are strongly
encouraged.
In support of NASA's core value of Inclusion and the Science Mission Directorate
Science Plan Strategy 4.1, this PRISM solicitation requires the addition of an Inclusion
Plan to proposals. All proposals must contain an Inclusion Plan of up to three pages in
length, placed in the PDF immediately following the Data Management Plan (DMP).
Inclusion Plans shall cite any relevant references and may include a separate list of
references immediately following the Inclusion Plan text. This list of references does not
count towards the Inclusion Plan page limit and shall be separate from those for the
main S/T/M Section. Letters of Resource Support (see Table 1 of Checklist for ROSES-
2022 Proposals) from institutions or partners contributing to, or assisting with, Inclusion
Plan efforts but who are not otherwise on the proposal team must be included after the
Inclusion Plan references and do not count toward the page limit.
5.3.1.1 Inclusion Plan Requirements
The Inclusion Plan shall:
• Identify barriers to creating a positive and inclusive working environment that are
specific to those carrying out the proposed investigation;
• Address ways in which the investigation team will work to overcome these
barriers to create and sustain an inclusive environment, such as fostering
communication and openness amongst the team, working against power
differentials on the team, elevating voices, etc.;
• Describe any training(s) that the team would participate in (e.g., bystander
intervention training, microaggression awareness training, etc.) to equip and train
team members in such a way that they can go on to lead and contribute to other
teams that are diverse and inclusive;

F.10-19
 • Clearly state goals for creating and sustaining a positive and inclusive working
environment and describe activities to achieve these goals; and
• Contain metrics for measuring the success of these activities.
The plan shall be specific to the investigation being proposed and the proposing team.
Proposers are encouraged to leverage institutional resources when available, but if the
plan includes a restatement of policies of the host institution, it shall also provide a clear
discussion of how these policies connect to the proposed investigation and proposal
team.
Proposals shall tailor their Inclusion Plans specifically to barriers the team will/may
encounter rather than to generic issues surrounding diversity and inclusion, and how the
team will work to overcome those barriers to create a positive and inclusive working
environment.
Proposers may budget for activities proposed in the Inclusion Plan. DEIA experts may
be hired as Co-Is or consultants to advise the team on, or oversee, their Inclusion Plan
efforts, but it is the proposal team’s responsibility to carry out the proposed activities
rather than fully outsource them. All team members are expected to contribute to
fostering an inclusive and positive work environment. Proposal teams are encouraged
to budget FTEs for identified team members to carry out the proposed Inclusion Plan
activities and must identify the team member(s), funded or unfunded, and which
activity(ies) they will be leading. Any procurement costs for and person time (FTEs)
planned for Inclusion Plan-related activities shall be explicitly identified and justified in
the Inclusion Plan section and clearly listed in the proposal’s main budget. These will be
assessed for reasonableness by the Inclusion Plan panel, separately from the cost
evaluations conducted by the Scientific Merit and Technical, Management, and Cost
panels (see Section 7). Reminder: the peer reviewed PDF must be redact salary, fringe
and overhead, see Section 6.
Some resources and research that may be useful when formulating an Inclusion
Plan can be found in the Inclusion Plan Resources document in the "other
documents" section on the NSPIRES page of this program element. Additionally, an
Inclusion Plan Best Practices Workshop will be held November 1 and 2, 1-3 pm ET,
see Section 3.3 of this program element for details.
Progress in executing the investigation’s Inclusion Plan shall be reported annually to the
PRISM Program Scientist(s).
5.3.1.2 Evaluation of Inclusion Plan
The Inclusion Plan will be evaluated by a separate panel of DEIA experts; this
assessment will not be part of the overall adjectival grade for the proposal and will not
influence selection recommendations. The Inclusion Plan will be assessed for
adequacy, appropriateness, and completeness, and will be deemed by the panel of
DEIA experts as “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory”. Feedback will be provided to the
proposers as part of the panel review summaries. For the assessment of the Inclusion
Plan, the review panel will be asked the following questions:

F.10-20
 • Does the Inclusion Plan demonstrate awareness of systemic barriers (e.g.,
unconscious bias, imposter syndrome, etc.) to creating inclusive working
environments that are specific to the proposal team?
• Does the Inclusion Plan provide satisfactory processes and goals for both
creating and sustaining a positive and inclusive working environment for the
investigation team?
• Does the Inclusion Plan include ways in which this inclusive working environment
will be sustained throughout the duration of the project period?
• Does the Inclusion Plan contain actionable items that will foster inclusive
practices among team members that they can then use beyond the funded
period?
• Does the Inclusion Plan demonstrate an understanding of the difference between
diversity and inclusion?
• Does the Inclusion Plan provide appropriate and satisfactory plans for training
and providing early career team members opportunities to participate in proposal
leadership roles?
• Does the Inclusion Plan provide reasonable and appropriate metrics for
measuring progress in and success of the proposed activities?
• Does the Inclusion Plan assign reasonable and realistic time, with appropriate
justification, to team members to successfully achieve the proposed inclusion
plan?
• If a budget is proposed for conducting activities associated with the proposed
Inclusion Plan, are those costs realistic and reasonable, with appropriate
justification?
Note that an Inclusion Plan is not the same as public engagement efforts or team
building exercises. An Inclusion Plan that solely describes such efforts will be
considered to be unsatisfactory and/or non-responsive for the purposes of this
solicitation.
Note that while the assessment of the Inclusion Plan will not be part of the adjectival
rating for the proposal and will not inform the selection of proposals, funding will be
released to selected institutions only once a satisfactory Inclusion Plan is approved by
the selection official. If additional funding is needed to implement the Inclusion Plan, that
request for funding shall be clearly identified and justified in the budget as a separate
budget element so it can be assessed. Reviewers and proposers will be invited to
provide comments and suggestions to improve this program after the review is
completed.
6. Cost Information
Proposals should not include costs of salary, fringe, or overhead anywhere in the
uploaded proposal PDF, including the budget detail or justification sections in the main
proposal, which will be seen by peer reviewers. However, all costs, including salary,
fringe and overhead, all subawards, and any separate Co-I awards do appear in two
places outside of the uploaded proposal PDF: 1) the NSPIRES web page budgets and

F.10-21
2) the separately uploaded "Total Budget" PDF file. See Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and the and the walkthrough on this subject.
Proposals must clearly describe the cost of all the investigation phases from project
initiation through the archival of data acquired during the mission and must be aligned to
project years 1-4.5. Some examples of the costs include: design, test, and evaluation of
the payload; supporting interactions between the payload and CLPS Integration
Manager; integration support costs, which can include providing supporting
documentation (e.g., thermal model, finite element model, master equipment list, etc.) to
the CLPS lander provider; support for PRISM suite/lander meetings and integration
(e.g., payload integration kickoff meeting, support for a payload workshop, preparation
of integration support documents, travel to the CLPS provider’s site to support payload
delivery); storage costs from delivery in place (i.e., when the payload build is complete)
to lander need date (~12 months prior to launch); and science team activities. Storage
costs shall be included as part of the proposal budget, and estimated at a cost per
month rate. These storage costs will be held within the reserves at the PMPO level.
Proposers shall also include the following travel in their proposed work scope and
budget:
• 1 Payload Workshop with lander vendor pool for 2 days for 2 people (may be
virtual)
• 1 Kickoff Meeting with selected lander vendor for 2 days for 2 people (may be
virtual)
• 1 trip to the selected vendor of up to 3 days for 2 people to address any problems
that occur after payload delivery
• 1 Monthly Review at major subcontractors conducted annually (other Monthly
Reviews are held virtually or at PI’s facility)
• Payload Delivery to Lander, for 5 days for up to 5 people, to perform functional
tests upon arrival, inspect lander interfaces, and discuss integration and ops with
lander provider.
Any additional travel needed to complete the development and testing of the payloads
and to conduct other team activities must be described and justified in the proposal.
Proposers shall provide a basis of estimate for their proposed budget, including planned
workforce totals, subcontract costs, and other relevant details. NASA's notional budget
profile for funding is 25% in project year 1 of the investigation, 40% in year 2, 25% in
year 3, and 10% in year 4. Proposal budgets shall roughly reflect this phasing. This
program's planning budget can accommodate one or more selections within this
solicitation's cost cap with a typical (combined) funding profile. Proposers shall request
a funding profile that is appropriate for their investigation. However, NASA cannot
guarantee that every proposed funding profile can be accommodated within the
program budget. The inability of NASA to accommodate the requested funding profile
may be a reason for non-selection of a proposal. Final funding profiles for all selected
investigations will be negotiated between NASA and the selected investigation teams.
The proposed cost reserves will be held at the PMPO level and shall be included in the
overall budget. For example, a suite that costs ~$42M would require $8.4M in reserves

F.10-22
and that would exceed the $50M cost cap for this delivery and thus would not be
compliant. Proposals must be capped at a budget level that allows for at least 20% cost
reserves (e.g., a $40M proposal would have a known 20% held at the PMPO level, and
shall include a clear statement in the budget summary acknowledging that up to $8.2M
reserves will be held at the PMPO level). The proposal shall justify the level of reserves
proposed by the project. The separately uploaded Total Budget file required by the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation, must include a clear budget line for reserves.
7. Evaluation Criteria
All compliant Step-2 proposals for this ROSES element will be evaluated in two
separate panels, one evaluating science merit, relevance, and cost (e.g., scope of
work), and the other evaluating technical, management, and cost (TMC) considerations,
based on the following criteria:
• Intrinsic science merit (and supporting exploration and/or technology merit, if
applicable) of the proposed investigation
o Compelling nature and priority of the proposed investigation's science goals and
objectives, including minimum and full mission success criteria and how science
return is enhanced by any requested CLPS-provider services;
▪ all else being equal, bonus science enabled by utilizing the goal sciences may
be a discriminator, but will not be factored into the adjectival rating.
o Likelihood of science success, including how well the proposed landing region
supports proposed science objectives, how well requested CLPS-provided
services support achieving identified science objectives, and how well anticipated
measurements support the goals and objectives, e.g., whether the resolution,
precision, etc. of the proposed instruments meet the requirements for achieving
the stated science objectives;
• Experiment science merit (and supporting exploration, and/or technology
implementation merit, if applicable) and the feasibility of the proposed
implementation of the identified investigation
o Probability of technical success;
o Likelihood that the the proposed plan will attain the proposed measurements;
o Science, exploration, or technology resiliency. This factor includes both
developmental and operational resiliency, including the ability to withstand
adverse circumstances and the potential to recover from anomalies in flight;
▪ Developmental resiliency includes the approach to descoping the full mission
objectives to the minimum mission objectives in the event that development
problems force reductions in scope.
▪ Operational resiliency includes the ability to withstand adverse circumstances,
the capability to degrade gracefully, and the potential to recover from
anomalies in flight.
o Probability of investigation team success. This factor will be evaluated by
assessing the expertise and organizational structure of the investigation team
and the experiment design in light of any proposed instruments;
o Facilities, instruments, equipment, and other resources or support systems
presented in the proposal that would affect the likelihood of achieving the

F.10-23
 proposed objectives; and
• Merit of the Data Management Plan (see Section 5.3)
o Justification that the data management plan is appropriate to meet the goals and
objectives of the investigation;
o Clear description of proposed data products (types, volumes, formats, and
standards) for delivery to the PDS or other adequate repository;
o Adequate plan, schedule, and resources for interpretation of data and for
reporting science, exploration, or technology results in the professional literature
(e.g., refereed journals);
o Adequate data archiving plan to ensure the preservation of data of value to the
research and development community; and
o Demonstration that the plan provides for the timely release of the data to the
public domain, for enlarging its impact.
• Relevance to PRISM 3
o Compelling and well-articulated argument that the proposed research is relevant
to the goals stated in this PRISM 3 Solicitation; and
o Demonstration that PRISM 3 is the most appropriate solicitation for the proposed
investigation.
• Reasonable, Realistic, and Well Justified Cost
o Reasonable resources requested (FTEs, travel, supply costs, etc.) for the scale
and type of work proposed;
o Realistic resources requested; and
o Clearly describe and justify the proposed budget, including all major sub-
contracts or sub-awards.
o Note that Inclusion Plan costs will be evaluated by the Inclusion Panel, not by the
Science Merit panel.
• Technical, management, and cost (TMC) feasibility of the proposed investigation,
including cost risk and accommodability
o Ease of accommodation of the proposed payload interfaces with potential CLPS
landers. This involves using common interface requirement guidelines as called
out in Section 3.4. Factors of most critical concern include, but are not limited to,
mass, power, and data rate. Lower mass of the proposed payload suite, for
example, will be seen as a cost benefit to NASA, as it may reduce its delivery
costs;
▪ Specific payload science accommodations are allowed outside of those
defined in Section 3.4, however they must be justified within the text of the
proposal.
▪ As a general rule of thumb, the more requests levied on the CLPS vendor, the
more likely it is that the accommodability score will be affected.
o Adequacy of the proposed destination for enabling safe landing opportunities
according to guidance in Sections 3.2 and 3.4.1;
o Adequacy of mass reserves and/or planned mass descopes to meaningfully
mitigate mass growth risks;
o Adequacy and robustness of the instrument implementation plan;
o Adequacy and robustness of the investigation design and plan for operation;

F.10-24
 o Adequacy and robustness of the flight hardware and software designs, heritage,
and margins;
o Adequacy and robustness of the management approach, including the capability
of the management team; and
o Adequacy and robustness of the cost plan, including identification of cost risks
and risk mitigation strategies.
o Extent to which the proposal convincingly demonstrates that the payload will be
available in time to support the lander integration schedules as described in
Section 3.3.
The TMC evaluations will be communicated in a three-tier color rating scale: Tier 1
(Green), Tier 2 (Yellow), and Tier 3 (Red). Tier 1 ratings (Greens) indicate that the
proposed investigation has very few or no accommodability and schedule issues
overall, proposals with Tier 2 ratings (Yellows) may have some issues deemed
addressable with early awareness and careful management, and proposals with Tier 3
ratings (Reds) have significant accommodability and/or schedule issues that render the
proposal unselectable. Key factors of accommodability that will be assessed include,
but are not limited to, mass growth risk and risk management strategy, power and data
transfer rate demands of the lander, risk and risk mitigation strategy for harm to the
lander and other manifested payloads, integration complexity, landing site suitability for
safe landing, and cost and cost risk mitigation strategy.
Selectable proposals will be relevant to PRISM 3, will have high scientific merit, with
instrumentation that appropriately addresses identified science objectives, and will
receive either green or yellow rating in the accommodability assessment (i.e., have no
significant barriers to accommodation by CLPS landers). Proposals deemed
“selectable” that have unsatisfactory or non-responsive Inclusion Plans will not be
considered for selection until a revised plan is determined to be satisfactory.
Although not part of the peer review process, the selection official may take into account
programmatic considerations such as impact on current or future missions, balance
across: subdisciplines, technologies, methodologies, career stage, risk, innovation,
types of institutions (e.g., MSI, PUI, vs. R1), and project size (such as funding several
small investigations instead of one large one), as per Section V(b) of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation. NASA will try to maximize overall programmatic balance as it
seeks to control total mass, cost, and payload complexity. If proposing a technology
demonstration, evaluations will assess how well it supports the primary science
objective(s), how it will enhance the impact of the investigation, and/or add value to
future investigations, and the potential risk to the science investigation objectives posed
by the technology demonstration.
The selecting official for this program element will be the SMD Deputy Associate
Administrator for Exploration.
8. Award Information and Description of NASA Contribution
It is anticipated that most awards to non-governmental organizations will be in the form
of cooperative agreements, not contracts. As described in the NASA Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Manual, the award type is determined by the nature of the work
F.10-25
proposed, without regard to type of organization. NASA's contribution to the
investigation is primarily through a separate procurement of the CLPS lander service,
which includes launch and delivery of the investigation to the lunar surface and data
return from the lunar surface. NASA will also contribute a CLPS Integration Manager
responsible for working between the payload provider and the CLPS lander provider,
supporting integration of the investigation onto the CLPS lander, and provision of a
Project Scientist to develop conops and landing site determinations among all NASA
payload stakeholders and the CLPS provider.
All selected investigations must comply with the technical requirements, integration
support obligations, and delivery schedules provided by NASA and/or the commercial
provider(s), to include on-site storage of the payload from delivery-in-place through
shipment to the CLPS provider and subsequent integration and check-out at the CLPS
provider facility.
9. Summary of Key Information
Maximum funding $50M PI cost over life cycle (real year dollars).
Number of awards At least 1. More may be selected based on
available funding/mass.
Maximum duration of awards 4.5 years.
Maximum investigation mass 50 kg total for the payload suite, including
integration mass (e.g., brackets, cables, etc.):
15 kg NTE mass for payloads on the CLPS-
provided mobility asset if proposed; remaining
mass under 50 kg NTE total payload suite
mass cap for lander.
Pre-proposal Conference October 6, 2022, 3:00 pm ET
Use this link or see Section 3.3 for connection
information.
Inclusion Plan Best Practices November 1 and 2, 1-3 pm ET, see Section 3.3
Workshop for connection information.
Due date for Step-1 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Due date for Step-2 proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA
Planning date for start of ~6 months after the Step-2 proposal due date
investigation
Payload delivery for integration ~12 months prior to launch
Landing dates (Target) Mid-2027 (target)

F.10-26
Page limit for the central Science-
Technical-Management section of
proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of
electronic proposals via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of
electronic proposals via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Point of contacts
30 pages. This does not include the additional
sections (e.g., Executive Summary, DMP,
Inclusion Plan) outside of the page limited
S/T/M section. See Section 5.3
This program element is relevant to all
goals/objectives of any SMD division as
outlined within the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program are,
by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
See Section IV and Table 1 of the ROSES-
2022
Please see NSPIRES Online Help, the 2022
NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
https://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at 202-479-9376 or nspires-
help@nasaprs.com)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-PRISM
Primary POC: Debra Needham
Secondary POC: Ryan Watkins
HQ-PRISM@mail.nasa.gov
F.10-27
F.11 STAND-ALONE LOCATION-AGNOSTIC PAYLOADS AND RESEARCH INVESTIGATIONS ON
THE SURFACE OF THE MOON

NOTICE: Amended October 27, 2022. This program element, which

was previously listed as TBD, will not be solicited in ROSES-2022. It
has been deferred to ROSES-2023, which will be released in February
2023.
1. Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
Stand-Alone Location-Agnostic Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of
the Moon (PRISM) will solicit proposals for investigations that include development and
flight of science-driven payloads to be delivered to the lunar surface by the Commercial
Lunar Payload Services (CLPS). This PRISM call is for science investigations that are
stand-alone (i.e., single instruments rather than suites) and location agnostic.
PRISM science investigations must address NASA's science objectives as described in
the Artemis III Science Definition Team Report (SDT), 2018 NASA Strategic Plan, the
relevant NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) division Decadal Surveys, and/or the
2019 NASA Science Strategy for the Moon. Also of relevance are those objectives
outlined in the NAS Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon. This PRISM call is
issued by SMD, thus, proposed investigations shall primarily address SMD's objectives
for the Moon. However, investigations that additionally address 1) Strategic Knowledge
Gaps of the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD), and 2)
any technology demonstration goals of the Space Technology Mission Directorate
(STMD) that advance capabilities for science, exploration, or commercial development
of the Moon are also welcome (see Human Exploration and Operations Mission
Directorate’s (HEOMD) Artemis Plan or Space Technology Mission Directorate
Strategic Outcomes under "other documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program
element, where potential proposers may find other documents of interest including an
FAQ).
2. Background and Scope of Program
NASA's CLPS project coordinates and contracts with commercial providers to land
scientific and technology payloads on the lunar surface. CLPS is a delivery service and
may carry NASA and non-NASA payloads; thus, NASA expects to be one of many
customers on a particular lunar surface delivery. NASA's CLPS project coordinates and
contracts with commercial providers to land scientific and technology payloads on the
lunar surface. CLPS deliveries are made of two components: instruments selected
through PRISM and Task Orders generated through the CLPS office. Once payloads
selected through this call have been identified, NASA will issue a separate Request For
Task Plan (RFTP) to procure lunar lander services from among the list of current CLPS
providers, and the selected provider will deliver the PRISM-awarded payload suite and
other NASA-sponsored payloads to the lunar surface. All Task Orders are firm fixed
price for the full scope of delivery, which necessitates mature payload interfaces and
requirements at the outset of the RFTP process. Several factors drive delivery costs,
including, but not limited to, lander delivery schedule, landing site terrain, and

F.11-1
accommodation (e.g., mass, power, communications, timing and duration of operations,
special needs of the instruments, etc.) of the payloads.
PRISM is SMD's primary mechanism for identifying payloads to be delivered through
CLPS. Separate NASA payloads acquired through directed work, international
contributions, or solicitations specific to other NASA mission directorates may be co-
manifested with PRISM investigations. Where possible, these separate payloads will be
identified in this program element to promote complementary research and reduce
redundancies in proposed investigations.
3. Points of contact
Ryan Watkins, Debra Needham, and Brad Bailey, all of whom may be reached at
HQ-PRISM@mail.nasa.gov.

F.11-2
F.12 ARTEMIS DEPLOYED INSTRUMENTS PROGRAM
NOTICE: Amended January 26, 2023. This program element, which
was previously listed as TBD, will not be solicited in ROSES-2022. It
has been deferred to ROSES-2023, which will be released in February
2023. It will first be released as a draft for community comment.
1. Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
NASA’s Science Mission Directorate solicits proposals for instruments to be deployed
on the surface of the Moon during the first crewed lunar landing. The first landing will be
a sortie mission in the south polar region of the Moon, within 6º of latitude from the
South Pole, providing access to persistently illuminated areas of the Moon and potential
access to surface-accessible volatile deposits.
Deployed instruments consist of autonomous instrument packages installed on the lunar
surface, either robotically or by astronauts during extravehicular activities. These
science packages enable a variety of geophysical and environmental investigations.
Some measurements from deployed instruments may reduce risks to astronauts in
addition to their intrinsic scientific value.
These proposed deployed instruments must address scientific objectives in the Artemis
Science Plan as well as those identified in the Artemis III Science Definition Team
(SDT) Report. These objectives are:
• Understanding planetary processes
• Understanding the character and origin of lunar polar volatiles
• Interpreting the impact history of the Earth-Moon system
• Revealing the record of the ancient Sun and our astronomical environment
• Observing the universe and the local space environment from a unique location
• Conducting experimental science in the lunar environment
• Investigating and mitigating exploration risks.
In addition to these objectives and the goals identified in the SDT report, a candidate
science program that includes measurements to be made from deployed instruments
was also described. Specific measurements using deployed instruments identified in the
SDT report include geophysical monitoring, environmental monitoring, and
understanding the human impact on the Moon.
Deployed instruments must have clear scientific goals; technology demonstrations or
instruments purely for in situ resource utilization (ISRU) are outside of the scope of this
call.
2. Points of Contact
Questions regarding this program element may be directed to Ryan Watkins and
Amanda Nahm at HQ-ArtemisInstruments@mail.nasa.gov.

F.12-1
F.13 LUNAR TERRAIN VEHICLE INSTRUMENTS PROGRAM
NOTICE: Amended October 25, 2022. This opportunity, which had
previously been listed as "TBD" will not be solicited in ROSES-2022.
NASA anticipates that it will be solicited in ROSES-2023, which will be
released in February 2023.
1. Introduction and Funding Opportunity Description
When it is solicited in ROSES-2023, Lunar Terrain Vehicle Instruments Program will
seek proposals for instruments to be deployed on the Lunar Terrain Vehicle that will be
delivered to the lunar surface ahead of the second crewed Artemis lunar surface
mission.
2. Points of Contact
Questions regarding this program element may be directed to Debra Needham at
debra.m.hurwitz@nasa.gov and Brad Bailey at brad.bailey@nasa.gov.

F.13-1
F.14 TRANSFORM TO OPEN SCIENCE TRAINING
NOTICE: Corrected September 16, 2022. A redundant paragraph
starting "A core principle of Open Science…" was removed from
Section 1. The due dates remain unchanged.
Amended September 9, 2022. This amendment releases the final text
for this program element, which had been listed as "TBD". Optional
notices of intent to propose are requested by November 10, 2022, and
proposals are due December 8, 2022.
NASA TOPS staff will host an informational session on F.14 TOPST
during their regular monthly Community Forum on October 13, 2022
at 1 PM ET / 10 AM PT. Please register and sign up to the TOPS email
list for additional information.
The Science/Technical/Management Section of proposals is limited to
10 pages. In addition, outside of this 10-page limit, are the required
Equal Access plans and Open-Source Science Development plans.
The latter replaces the Data Management Plan.
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-
anonymous review process. Proposals must be prepared according
to the guidelines in Section 4.2 and in the associated "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element.
1. Overview and Background
NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is making a long-term commitment to
support building an inclusive open science community over the next decade via the
Open-Source Science Initiative (OSSI). A key component of OSSI is the Transforming
to OPen Science (TOPS) project. The TOPS project will coordinate efforts designed to
accelerate scientific discovery and equity with open science. SMD has declared 2023 as
the Year of Open Science within a five-year effort to transform to open science. During
2023, NASA will initiate a suite of coordinated activities designed to support adoption of
open science. TOPS goals are:
• Increase understanding and adoption of open science principles and techniques.
• Accelerate major scientific discoveries.
• Broaden participation in SMD-funded research by historically under-represented
communities.
Activities supported under this element are expected to form key parts of the 2023 Year
of Open Science. As the Year of Open Science activities are developed, they will be
described at the TOPS GitHub site.
This Transform to OPen Science Training (TOPST) element of ROSES solicits
proposals to advance open science literacy for all who do research relevant to NASA’s
SMD through training and workshops targeting audiences from undergraduate students
to established scientists and managers. Common guidelines for default proposal format
and content may be found in the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. Where
instructions in this program element differ from those defaults this program element

F.14-1
takes precedence. For example, the 10-page limit for the
Science/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section, the Open-Source Science
Development Plan (see Section 4.1) that replaces the data management plan, and, for
summer schools and virtual cohorts proposals only, the Equal Access Plans (described
in Section 4.2.1).
A core principle of Open Science is allowing everyone to access resources for scientific
learning and research. To that end, NASA has developed an Open Science curriculum,
called OpenCore, that introduces open science to a general community. The second
phase, for which this Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is soliciting grant
applications, is the development of ScienceCore, a curriculum of discipline-specific
materials that showcase open-science workflows and capacity building for OpenCore.
This grant NOFO seeks applications from entities to support the following three
activities:
(1) Development of ScienceCore materials (see Section 3.1),
(2) Implementation of summer schools (see Section 3.2.1), and
(3) Virtual cohorts (see Section 3.2.2).
Section 2 describes who is eligible to submit proposals to this element. Section 3
provides detailed information about this solicitation for proposals the different
components, and how proposals submitted in response to this program element must
connect the proposed content to specific SMD goals. Additional information about
requirements, review process, evaluation criteria, and funding may be found in Section
4. Section 5 contains a summary of key information.
2. Eligibility
Participation is open to all categories of U.S. institutions including educational, for-profit,
and not-for-profit organizations, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,
University Affiliated Research Centers, NASA Centers including JPL, and other
Government agencies. Proposals from non-U.S. institutions are welcome, but they must
be on a no-exchange-of-funds basis; funding may not be requested to support activities
at non-US institutions but may be requested to support activities at US institutions, e.g.,
for funding a Co-Investigator at a U.S. institution. There is also a special restriction on
NASA funding and China, see Section III.c of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
NASA recognizes and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive scientific,
engineering, and technology communities and fully expects the reflection of such values
in the composition of all panels and teams, including peer review panels, proposal
teams, science definition teams, and mission and instrument teams. Per Federal
statutes and NASA policy, no eligible applicant shall experience exclusion from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving financial assistance from NASA on the grounds of their
race, color, creed, age, sex, national origin, or disability. NASA welcomes proposals
from all qualified and eligible sources, and strongly encourages proposals from
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Serving Institutions, small
disadvantaged businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-
owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, and women-owned small
businesses, as eligibility requirements allow.

F.14-2
3. Program Description
Open science is a priority strategy of NASA’s SMD (Science 2020-2024: A Vision for
Scientific Excellence - FY 21-22 Update). Proposals submitted in response to this
program element must demonstrate the relevance of the activities to SMD and NASA's
OSSI. The SMD’s Science Plan Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence,
the NASA 2022 Strategic Plan, and other documents, may be found at the SMD
Science Strategy. The SMD’s Strategy for Data Management and Computing for
Groundbreaking Science 2019-2024 contains more information about the Open-Source
Science Initiative.
This program element solicits proposals for (1) the development of science discipline-
specific curriculum (ScienceCore) to advance open science adoption, and institutional
capacity building through (2) summer schools and (3) virtual cohorts. The training
materials, as well as the design of the learning activities, must be targeted to audiences
from undergraduate students to established scientists and managers from all science
disciplines supported by SMD.
3.1 ScienceCore Curriculum
One of the TOPS goals is to increase understanding and adoption of Open Science
principles and techniques in the science community. To that end, the American
Geophysical Union (AGU), is developing OpenCore, a core curriculum that introduces
open science concepts to the general community. This curriculum consists of five (5)
modules organized as a complete scientific workflow. Individuals who complete all five
modules will earn the TOPS Open Science Badge. OpenCore will be public no later
than April 1, 2023.
This program element is soliciting new curriculum that will create TOPS ScienceCore.
Modules will either be integrated into the TOPS Open edX platform or be interactive
Jupyter Books hosted on the TOPS GitHub. Modules may extend OpenCore concepts
or cover foundational discipline-specific themes leveraging, were possible, existing
NASA cloud-based datasets. We are specifically soliciting curricula that focus on any of
the following topics:
• How to access and analyze NASA science data including cloud-based data.
• Core open-source data, analysis, and visualization libraries both general and
discipline-specific libraries.
• Creation, management, and sharing of reproducible science workflows and
results.
TOPS is particularly interested in curricula that are:
• Accessible to individuals with disabilities for example, non-
neurotypical/neurodivergent, have auditory and/or visual needs, and other,
similar groups,
• Built openly allowing for contributions by anyone interested in doing so,
• Built on existing content in a collaborative fashion where possible,
• Provide training materials in multiple languages, for example English and
Spanish, where possible, and
• Contain narrative and executable content (e.g., interactive content).

F.14-3
The ScienceCore curriculum complements the OpenCore and provides basic
information about the technology and tools for open science, highlighting SMD Division
priorities.
Priority will be given to proposals that make use of cloud-based NASA datasets (e.g.,
EarthData, STScl, and other datasets that will be provided as they transition to the
cloud) and/or feature use cases that will attract large audiences. Proposers must review
and align the ScienceCore curriculum use cases to the following specific themes that
are currently priorities for SMD Divisions:
A. Earth Science Division:
a. Earth Science: Atmospheric Composition, Weather, Carbon Cycle and
Ecosystems, Water and Energy Cycle, Climate Variability and Change,
and the Earth Surface and Interior.
b. Earth Science Applications: Water resources, agriculture, health & air
quality, disasters, climate, wildfires, environmental justice
B. Heliophysics Division:
a. Physical processes in the space environment from the Sun to the
heliopause and throughout the universe (Sun, heliosphere,
magnetosphere, ionosphere, and upper atmosphere).
b. Sun’s activity, and the connections between solar variability and Earth and
planetary space environments, the outer reaches of our solar system, and
the interstellar medium.
C. Planetary Science Division:
a. Observation and discovery of our Solar System’s planetary objects.
b. Origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the Universe.
c. Objects in the Solar System that pose threats to Earth or offer resources
for human exploration.
D. Astrophysics Division:
a. Origin and destiny of our universe, including the nature of black holes,
dark energy, dark matter, and gravity.
b. Origin and evolution of the galaxies, stars, and planets that make up our
universe.
c. Discover and study of planets around other stars and explore whether
they could harbor life.
E. Biological and Physical Sciences Division:
a. Gravity effects on living organisms and response of biological systems to
spaceflight environments.
b. Response of physical systems to spaceflight environments, particularly
weightlessness and the partial gravity of planetary bodies.
3.2 Capacity Building
Capacity-building activities are intended to support learners earning the TOPS Open
Science Badge by completing all five OpenCore modules. The proposed activities must
include OpenCore as the base training material. As it becomes available, including
ScienceCore content on the learning activities, is encouraged. Proposals should focus
on responding to either Subsection 3.2.1, Summer Schools, or Subsection 3.2.2, Virtual

F.14-4
cohorts. Each proposal is limited to a single topic, but any given organization or PI may
submit multiple proposals.
Diversity and inclusion policies and practices of all proposed activities should make
clear that everyone is welcome and strive to create an environment that is free of
harassment and discrimination. Organizers of events must have a specific policy, code
of conduct, or meeting ground rules provided in advance and available during the event
for all participants. As part of the Equal Access Plan for Summer Schools and Virtual
Cohorts described in Subsection 4.2.1, proposals must include a brief overview of the
meeting conduct principles or policies and identify one or more individuals responsible
for addressing violations of them. One example is the TOPS Code of Conduct.
3.2.1 Summer Schools
Summer Schools will help advance adoption of open science by teaching the OpenCore
curriculum and increasing opportunities for collaborations. It is expected that the
selectees for this component will organize a series (6 to 8) of 5-day summer schools
that teach OpenCore. The TOPS team will assist the selectees with identifying
participants or science teams for the summer schools. Each of the events will host 60 to
80 people. Summer schools will be held annually, beginning in 2023. The Summer
schools should be designed for both the completion of the five OpenCore modules and
allowing for scientific collaborations (presentations, talks, and discussions). One
possible model would be facilitating and teaching one OpenCore module each morning,
then allowing the attendees to design the afternoon agendas. Selectees for this activity
must provide:
• Meeting organization and logistics (e.g., facilities, A/V, registration, agendas,
lodging and travel logistics, etc.),
• Coordination of one poster showcase evening activity,
• Pre-meeting event with mentors/early career researchers,
• Completion of all five OpenCore modules,
• Provide travel funding for 5-10 NASA TOPS team selected graduate
student/early career scientists per meeting, and
• Create additional opportunities for attendees to interact with the local community
through talks, events, or seminars.
Priority will be placed on proposals that hold activities at or heavily involve non-R1
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions and Tribal
Colleges and Universities, or have previously held similar activities that have
documented participation and sustained engagement by underrepresented
communities. If needed, the NASA TOPS team will identify a lead for each meeting who
will coordinate with the selectee on meeting details, registration, and selection of
attendees.
3.2.2 Virtual Cohorts
Online courses have high attrition rates (Raghuvanshi, 2021). Additional support is
therefore needed to facilitate and encourage completion of the TOPS OpenCore. Virtual
cohorts have been a successful model for remote learning and community building,
providing the opportunity to have groups of participants completing TOPS OpenCore

F.14-5
together over a specific period of time. TOPS will build on that approach to support
learners' completion of the TOPS Open Science Badge.
Virtual cohorts may either come from scientists and researchers first engaging
with OpenCore and ScienceCore, or from individuals and groups that have participated
in an in-person event and want to expand their learning opportunities.
The OpenCore modules will be taught at large professional society meetings, Summer
Schools, and other events. At these events many scientists will complete one or
more OpenCore modules. These scientists will require help, encouragement, and
support to complete OpenCore and earn their badge. Virtual cohort organizers may
target these learners to enroll in virtual cohorts.
The selectee(s) has flexibility in organizing activities, but it is expected that all five
modules will be taught to virtual cohorts throughout the year, completing the entire
curriculum 5 - 8 times (25 - 40 virtual activities per year). Outreach activities to these
communities will be important. The selected groups will work on outreach and
community building, creating cohorts, and supporting learners' progression to
completion of the open science curriculum. Open edX provides cohort organizational
capabilities. Timelines, check-ins, and weekly group calls with the virtual cohorts
participants to complete the OpenCore are appropriate activities to describe in the
proposed approach.
3.2.3 Logistics for Summer Schools and Virtual Cohorts
The approach to both of the activities should reflect Open Science principles. Proposals
are not limited to traditional, e.g., in-person meetings. The narrative should indicate
whether the activity is totally in-person or virtual or hybrid. Proposals must describe any
travel, logistics, accessibility, health, and safety considerations, including the security of
proposed technologies provided to participants, and safety policies and risk mitigation
procedures (in the case of a local or national public health or another type of
emergency) of the location where the meeting will occur, if and only if it is in-person.
When a PI’s institution is not the primary host organizing the activity, then the proposal
shall describe the results of any consultations with the organizers regarding any safety
policies/procedures, travel flexibilities, alternate dates, plans for virtual participation, etc.
The logistics of the activity must be described well enough for SMD to ensure it will
achieve the stated purpose(s). This includes and is not limited to the size, location,
duration, scheduling, and cost of the activity for both sponsor(s) and attendees. No
venue shall be proposed that discriminates on the grounds of race, color, age, ethnicity,
religion, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, marital status, disability, or
status as a U.S. Veteran.
For geographic locations, proposers are encouraged to choose a U.S. location, e.g., 50
U.S. states, the District of Columbia, commonwealths and territories, and tribal lands
within the United States. The proposal should explain why a non-U.S. location is
justified.
NASA encourages using facilities that are appropriate to the proposed activities, e.g., an
academic facility, a public or private conference center, or a retreat facility. NASA
discourages the use of entertainment, recreation, sporting, or luxury venues. Proposals

F.14-6
should explain the choice of any such unusual facilities. Facilities or venues shall
provide equal and integrated access for individuals with disabilities. When access is not
apparent, activities may have to identify or add signage that enables participants with
disabilities to navigate the accessible routes to a venue's restrooms, meeting rooms,
etc.
A proposal that requests to include any NASA civil servant as an in-person, on-site
attendee, or speaker, is advised that NASA adheres to all stipulations of the most recent
Model Safety Principles on the Safer Federal Workforce website. NASA Contractor
employees also may be subject to similar limitations, and they will consult their
management regarding potential travel to a TOPST event.
Proposers may request funds to purchase and distribute the necessary equipment
and/or contract with a service provider for video conferencing, augmented reality,
telepresence robots, real-time sign-language interpretation, live captioning,
communications software/licenses, etc. to replace or reduce participant travel to
activities and to produce agendas and proceedings. Proposers must explain the
importance of these purchases/services and how they relate to the success,
accessibility, and safety considerations for the activities in the proposal's narrative.
Communications and other technology often provide access innovations; however,
some internet, media and technology choices create access challenges for participants
who need language, audio, visual or other support. TOPST encourages Summer
Schools and Virtual Cohorts proposers to consider and explain how they plan to ensure
equal access. This must be included on the Equal Access Plans described in Section
4.2.1. Here we provide some useful references:
• NASA’s Mission Equity initiative: https://www.nasa.gov/mission-equity
• Accessibility requirements for information and communication technology:
https://www.access-board.gov/ict/
• Universal Design and Accessibility:
https://www.section508.gov/develop/universal-design/
4. Additional Information
4.1 Requirements
Unless otherwise specified here, proposals must follow all default requirements
described in F.1 The Cross Division Research Overview and the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation.
Proposals must address one of the topics in Section 3 (3.1 ScienceCore curriculum;
3.2.1 Summer Schools; 3.2.2 Virtual Cohorts) and follow all requirements described in
that section. Each proposal is limited to a single topic, but any given organization or PI
may submit multiple proposals. All ScienceCore curriculum final products will be
permissively licensed and contributed to the TOPS GitHub.
Proposals must include an Open-Source Science Development Plan that describes how
project materials will be openly available. The Open-Source Science Development Plan
must conform to Earth Science Division guidelines. The plan must describe the
management of the materials developed as part of the project and how they will be

F.14-7
released openly. If data or software are planned to be created as part of the project, the
Open-Source Science Development Plan should include a description of how these will
be managed, archived, and shared openly. These should be described in their own data
management and software management sections included as part of the Open-Source
Science Development Plan. The plan may be up to two pages, is anonymized, is
included in the main proposal PDF, immediately following the references and citations
for the S/T/M section of the proposal. This Open-Source Science Development Plan
replaces the standard ROSES requirement for a Data Management Plan.
Funded TOPST projects must work in a collaborative open fashion. Proposals should
include a plan for attendance at an annual 4-day TOPS coordination meeting in
Washington DC.
4.2 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review process in which, not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the members
on the review panel, but the reviewers do not have explicit knowledge of the proposal
teams during the scientific evaluation of the proposal. The overarching objective of dual-
anonymous peer review is to reduce unconscious bias in the evaluation of the merit of a
proposal. See also https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review.
To implement dual-anonymous peer review, reviewers may not see any information that
would identify proposers, so proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for
this program element that explain how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-
anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will not be seen by peer reviewers. This has two implications: 1) the
anonymized Proposal Summary must also be included as the first page of the proposal
PDF and 2) proposers must upload a separate "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" document, that contains any personally (and organizational) identifying
information.
To meet the objectives of dual-anonymous peer review, review panels will be instructed
to evaluate the anonymized proposals, without considering the proposing team
qualifications. As a final check, and only after the evaluation is finalized for all
proposals, the panel will be provided with the "Expertise and Resources - Not
Anonymized" documents. The panel will assess the qualifications of the team in order to
allow the reviewers to assess the team capabilities required to execute a given
proposed science investigation.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.

F.14-8
Proposal summary Enter as part of the NSPIRES cover page and as the first page
of the uploaded proposal PDF file.
Page limit for the 10 pages per topic. One additional page is allotted for the
S/T/M section Proposal Summary, two additional pages are allotted for the
anonymized Open-Source Science Development Plan (see
Section 4.1), and, for Summer Schools and Virtual Cohorts
proposals only, two additional pages are allocated for the
anonymized Equal Access Plan (see Section 4.2.1).
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Sketches "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Current and Do not include in main proposal document. Include in separate
Pending Support "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document.
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Summary Table of Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion in
the separate "Expertise and Resources – Not Anonymized"
document.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in the
Equipment separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research in
an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions of
facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with facilities
are to be included in the separate "Expertise and Resources -
Not Anonymized" document.
Open-Source Include in main proposal document in an anonymized format.
Science Two additional pages are allotted for the Open-Source Science
Development Plan Development Plan (see Section 4.1).
Equal Access Plan Only applies to Summer Schools and Virtual Cohorts. Include in
main proposal document in an anonymized format. Two
additional pages are allotted for the Equal Access Plan (see
Section 4.2.1).
Letters or All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Statements Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized" document
High-End Submit not-anonymized PDF HEC form as document type
Computing request "Appendix" in NSPIRES. The S/T/M section in the main
proposal must state that a HEC request is included and must
provide an outline of the computing resources required in an
anonymized fashion.
Separate Submit as document type "Appendix" in NSPIRES. This
"Expertise and document provides a list of all team members, their roles,
Resources - Not institutional affiliations, expertise, and contributions to the work.
The document should also discuss any specific resources that

F.14-9
 Anonymized" are key to completing the proposed work, as well as a summary
document of work effort. Statements of Current and Pending Support must
also be included. Any formal relationship with the sponsoring
agency’s mission shall be described in this section. Membership
in ongoing mission science teams that may overlap with the
proposed research shall be described in this section. Letters of
support, e.g., from facilities or archives, must be included in this
section.

4.2.1 Equal Access Plan for Summer Schools and Virtual Cohorts
Inclusion is a core NASA value, exemplified by NASA in the Administrator’s recently
released policy statement on this Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA).
Additionally, Strategy 4.1 of "Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence"
states: "Increase the diversity of thought and backgrounds represented across the entire
SMD portfolio through a more inclusive environment." This strategy clearly underscores
the importance of DEIA in NASA's work.
NASA values the strengths of an increasingly diverse and inclusive workforce and aims
to fully engage varied talents, ideas, and perspectives; moving toward this goal is one of
the Agency’s highest priorities.
This opportunity defines inclusion as the full participation, belonging, and contribution of
groups and individuals within an organization or endeavor. Inclusion requires that
everyone's contributions be valued, that individuals, regardless of the diversity
dimension, can do their best work and advance.
By fostering an atmosphere of inclusion and respect for all, we value the strengths
afforded by both our commonalities and differences with an aim to fully engage varied
talents, ideas, and perspectives. Projects that offer an opportunity to use and empower
the nation's diverse talent pool and increase its participation in science are strongly
encouraged.
In support of NASA's core value of Inclusion and the SMD Science Plan Strategy 4.1,
summer schools and virtual cohorts proposals must include an Equal Access Plan of up
to 2 pages in the proposal PDF immediately following the Open-Source Science
Development Plan. The Equal Access Plan should cite any relevant references and may
include a separate list of references immediately following the Equal Access Plan text.
This list of references does not count towards the Equal Access Plan page limit and
should be separate from those for the main S/T/M Section.
Letters of Resource Support (see Table 1 of Checklist for ROSES-2022 Proposals) from
institutions or partners contributing to, or assisting with, Equal Access efforts must be
included as part of the separate "Expertise and Resources - Not Anonymized"
document.
The Equal Access Plan shall:
• Discuss how you plan to create a positive and inclusive in-person or virtual
events that are specific to the proposed activities;

F.14-10
 • Describe any training(s) in which the team plans to participate (e.g., bystander
intervention training, microaggression awareness training, etc.) to equip and train
team members in such a way that they can go on to lead and contribute to other
teams that are diverse and inclusive;
• Clearly state goals for creating and sustaining a positive and inclusive working
environment and describe activities to achieve these goals; and
• Contain metrics for measuring the success of these activities.
• Include a brief overview of the meeting conduct principles or policies and identify
one or more individuals responsible for addressing violations of them.
4.3 Evaluation Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated against the three evaluation criteria: Intrinsic Merit,
Relevance, and Cost, as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
In addition to the definitions given in Appendix D of the Guidebook for Proposers, the
evaluation of proposals submitted to this program element will include the following
additions/clarifications:
A. The evaluation of relevance will include the alignment with the SMD scientific
vision, NASA’s Open-Source Science Initiative (OSSI), and the Transform to
OPen Science (TOPS) project.
B. The evaluation of the impact/significance factor of merit will include the extent to
which proposers appropriately used NASA datasets, and/or use cases that will
attract large audiences, as applicable.
C. The evaluation of the impact/significance factor of merit will include the extent to
which the proposers appropriately describe how project materials will be openly
available. (Open-Source Science Development Plan).
D. For Summer Schools and Virtual Cohorts only, the evaluation of the
impact/significance factor of merit will include the extent to which the proposers
appropriately explain the Equal Access Plan.
E. Although not part of the peer review evaluation of the proposal, as a
programmatic factor the selection official may consider whether the proposed
project broadens participation by organizations that serve historically
underrepresented communities, including non-R1 Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) and Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCU) as activities locations (if applicable).
4.4 Funding
It is anticipated that the funding available for awards made in response to proposals to
this program element will be $2.9 million per year. The number of proposals selected
will be dependent on the number and quality of proposals submitted and on the
availability of funds. The awards duration is described below and will depend on the
availability of funds. It is anticipated that:
• The ScienceCore Curriculum topic will have a total budget of $1.3 million per
year, with awards having a maximum duration of two years. It is estimated that 6-
12 projects will be selected.

F.14-11
 • The Summer Schools topic will have a total budget of $1.2 million per year, with
awards being a maximum of three years. It is estimated that 3-4 projects will be
selected.
• The Virtual Cohorts topic will have a total budget of $400,000 per year, with
awards being a maximum of three years. It is estimated that 2-3 projects will be
selected.
Funding to non-governmental organizations may be administered through either grants
or cooperative agreements. When appropriate, all funds for a given team will be sent to
the proposing institution, which must in turn provide any stipend to funded team
members at non-governmental organizations. Only one Cooperative Agreement or
Grant will be negotiated per selected proposal.
4.5 Description of NASA Contribution
It is anticipated that awards to non-governmental organizations will be in the form of
cooperative agreements. The cooperative agreement(s) resulting from this element
represent a partnership between NASA/SMD and the competitively selected team(s) to
promote and advance public understanding of science and technology, as well as to
collaborate with NASA to advance OSSI activities to meet SMD objectives.
In addition to funding (subject to availability of appropriated funds), oversight, and
monitoring, NASA will be substantially involved by facilitating access for awardees to
SMD-sponsored scientists, programs, and projects, and to related activities being
conducted throughout the Agency. In particular, NASA shall:
• Provide policy guidance to the awardees as needed.
• Provide information on TOPS objectives, activities, and opportunities.
• Work with the awardees to develop appropriate mechanisms for the coordination
and integration of activities with each other and other members of TOPS.
• For summer schools and virtual cohorts, provide lists of science teams and
registered learners, and
• If needed, the NASA TOPS team will identify a lead for each meeting who will
coordinate with the selectee on meeting details, registration, and selection of
attendees.
5. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget ~$2.9 million per year, see Section 4.4
for new awards
Number of new awards pending See Section 4.4
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards TOPST Curriculum - 2 years
TOPST Summer Schools - 3 years
TOPST Virtual Cohorts - 3 years
Due date for Notice of Intent to See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.

F.14-12
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Website for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Website for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program both of whom share this
address:
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546
Typically, no earlier than 6 months after the
proposal submission date.
10 pages; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. See also
Section 4.2 for information on required plans.
See Section 3. Proposals that are relevant to this
program element are, by definition, relevant to
NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See F.1 the Cross Division Research Program
Overview, Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and Section
IV of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-TOPST
Chelle Gentemann
Telephone: 202-934-0771
Email: chelle.gentemann@nasa.gov
Yaítza Luna-Cruz
Telephone: (202) 480-0038
Email: yaitza.luna-cruz@nasa.gov
F.14-13
F.15 HIGH PRIORITY OPEN-SOURCE SCIENCE
NOTICE: Amended December 1, 2022. This amendment releases the
final text for this program element, which had been listed as "TBD".
This is a no-due-date program and proposals may be submitted at any
time until March 29, 2023, by which point the ROSES-2023 version of
this program element should be open for proposal submission. A
virtual meeting for prospective proposers will occur January 19, 2023,
1-2 pm ET. Connect information for this meeting will be posted under
other documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element no
later than December 19, 2023.
Rather than a Data Management Plan, proposals to this program must
include an Open-Source Science Development Plan, see Section 4.2.
This program will evaluate proposals using dual-anonymous peer
review, see Section 4.3 and the associated "Guidelines for
Anonymous Proposals" document under "Other Documents" on the
NSPIRES page for this program element.
1. Background
NASA's Open-Source Science Initiative (OSSI) is the long-term SMD program that
supports open science and the implementation of the goals from the Strategy for Data
Management and Computing for Groundbreaking Science 2019-2024. SMD’s Scientific
Information Policy for the Science Mission Directorate provides direction on how
scientific information, including publications, data, and software, produced from SMD
funding should be made publicly available. As such, SMD is interested in innovative
proposals that would advance and streamline the open sharing of scientific information.
This could be in the areas of scientific publications, data, or software; or in areas that
are not traditionally used to share scientific results but aim to make them more
accessible to a larger audience of research scientists.
In the Strategy for Data Management and Computing for Groundbreaking Science
2019-2024 the adoption of new technology is identified as a key component of
advancing science. The strategy identified areas of new technology that are ripe for
further advancements to accelerate science, including cloud computing, high
performance computing, and artificial intelligence.
As part of the OSSI, the Transform to OPen Science (TOPS) project will coordinate
efforts over the next 5 years to rapidly accelerate open science practices across
agencies, organizations, and communities. TOPS has three overarching goals: (1)
increase understanding and adoption of open science principles and techniques in the
science community, (2) accelerate major scientific discoveries, and (3) broaden
participation by historically excluded communities.
2. Scope of Program
SMD seeks proposals to support the OSSI and advance the goals of increasing
transparency, accessibility, inclusion, and reproducibility of research in the SMD
scientific community. This program element supports the development of innovative

F.15-1
open-source tools, software, frameworks, data formats, and libraries that will have a
significant impact to the SMD science community.
Proposals must clearly state how the work supports the OSSI. This may include
increasing the accessibility and usability of new technology as defined by the Strategy
for Data Management and Computing for Groundbreaking Science and/or supporting
the development of technology in alignment with the goals of TOPS. Proposals for work
that will support the OSSI across the SMD scientific community may be given priority,
though proposals for work corresponding to an individual SMD Division are also
welcome. Proposals may be submitted at any time until March 29, 2023, by which point
the ROSES-2023 version of this program element should be open for proposal
submission. Proposals submitted to this program element will be expected to complete
the work within one year.
3. Programmatic Information
3.1 Eligibility
Participation is open to all categories of U.S. institutions including educational,
industrial, and not-for-profit organizations, Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs),
NASA Centers including JPL, and other Government agencies.
Proposals from non-U.S. institutions are welcome, but they must be for funding of a co-
investigator at a U.S. institution. Foreign participation in Teaming Arrangements or
Leveraging Relationships may only be proposed at no cost to NASA.
3.2 Program Exclusions
Proposals submitted in response to this program element must be for new work that is
not currently supported by SMD. Proposals may expand existing SMD-supported
projects with the addition of innovative open-source tools, software, frameworks, data
formats, and libraries, as long as these are new additions that are not currently
supported by SMD.
Supplements to existing NASA grants for software projects that are currently closed
source or need to be modernized should be submitted to F.8 Supplemental Open
Source Software Awards. Projects looking for long-term support for sustainability should
be submitted to the F.7 Support for Open Source Tools, Frameworks, and Libraries next
year when it is solicited in ROSES-2023. Support for the development of training
material should be submitted to the F.14 Transform to Open Science Training. Support
for Open Science related events should be submitted to F.2 Topical Workshops,
Symposia, and Conferences.
Innovative projects related directly to answering a scientific question using new tools or
software development are to be submitted to the relevant program in each SMD
Division, e.g., D.2 Astrophysics Data Analysis, B.20 Heliophysics Tools and Methods,
and F.19 Multidomain Reusable Artificial Intelligence Tools.
3.3 Funding
It is anticipated that the funding available for all awards made in response to proposals
to this program element will be $300,000 for ROSES-2022. This is expected to support

F.15-2
3-5 projects for the call. The awards will be for a duration of one year and a typical size
of ~$100,000 per award.
Funding to non-governmental organizations will be administered through either grants
or cooperative agreements, depending on the nature of the work proposed, but not
contracts. NASA will negotiate with the selected proposing organizations and will
administer all funding. All funds for a given team will be sent to the proposing
institution, which must provide any funding to team members at other non-
governmental organizations. That is, only one Cooperative Agreement or Grant will be
negotiated per selected proposal.
3.4 Programmatic Themes
SMD seeks proposals to support OSSI that will advance the goals of increasing
transparency, accessibility, inclusion, and reproducibility of research in the SMD
scientific community. At this time, the following areas are seen as programmatic
priorities for OSSI:
• Supporting open-source science practices that align with SMD Scientific
Information Policies
o Advancing access and discoverability of research data including via
metadata, persistent identifiers, and data formats
o Advancing access, curation, and discoverability of research software
• Information technology development for research and missions
o Data formats that support cloud computing
• Transform to open science (TOPS)
o Development of scientific analysis platforms
o Inclusive practices for data accessibility
Proposals on other open-source science topics relevant for SMD are welcome, but
proposals in the above areas may be given priority.
4. Proposal Preparation
Proposals must be prepared in accordance with the instructions given in the ROSES-
2022 Summary of Solicitation (SoS) and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. The
ROSES SoS takes precedence over the Guidebook and instructions in this program
element take precedence over both. The proposal must be submitted via NSPIRES or
Grants.gov by the organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative. A budget
and other specified information is required.
The Science/Technical/Management section of the proposal must contain a detailed
statement of the proposed work within 5 single-spaced pages including figures and
tables. This section must be anonymized for dual-anonymous peer review (see Section
4.3). Proposals must adhere to formatting requirements (e.g., margins, font sizes, line
spacing). Please see section IV(b)ii of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation for
complete guidelines.
The following elements must be included in the proposal to allow for the evaluation of
the proposal:

F.15-3
 • A clear description of the project and relevance to the SMD science community
and the relationship to the NASA SMD Science Vision and Strategy for Data
Management and Computing for Groundbreaking Science. This should include:
o the impact of the project in the SMD science community.
o the relevance to OSSI, which may include support for the goals of TOPS.
o how the project will advance transparency, accessibility, inclusion, and/or
reproducibility of research in the SMD scientific community.
• The development activities to be undertaken for the project must be described
including:
o the innovative technology, as defined in Section 1, to be developed as part of
the project and the work to be done to develop the technology.
o this may include, but not be limited to, open-source tools, software,
frameworks, data formats, and libraries that will have a significant impact to
the SMD science community.
o a discussion that demonstrates that the requested resources are necessary
and sufficient for success in achieving the proposed effort.
• The project management must be described. This must include:
o governance and development model for the project, such as the process for
decision making or reaching consensus.
o information on the accessibility of the project including the license the project
is using and how material produced by the product will be shared openly.
o timeline for the development work to be completed.
For proposals advancing an existing project with the addition of innovative open-source
tools, software, frameworks, data formats, and libraries, there must be clear support
from the leadership of that project. This could be in the form of the proposal to this
opportunity being led by the leadership of that existing project, existing project
leadership as Co-Investigators on the proposal to this opportunity, or a letter of support
from the leadership of the project. If a proposal to this opportunity does not include
existing project leadership, then a letter of support is required and must be provided as
part of the separately uploaded "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document,
see Section 4.3.
4.1 Rolling Submissions – No Fixed Due Date
Proposals to this program element may be submitted at any time without any
preliminary statement such as a Notice of Intent or Step-1 proposal. Programs such as
this one with No Due Date (NoDD) will review proposals throughout the year with a
cadence that will depend on the rate at which proposals are submitted. This program
element adopts the process for NoDD described in Section 2.4 of C.1 Planetary Science
Research Program Overview and the restrictions on duplicate proposals and
resubmissions described in Section 3.2 of that document.
The NSPIRES page for this program element displays a "Proposals Due" date, but that
is simply the end date for the current ROSES, after which proposals may be submitted
to the program element with the same name in the next ROSES. For more information
regarding NoDD programs, please refer to the NoDD informational PDF posted under
other documents on the NSPIRES page for this program element and on the NASA
NoDD page.

F.15-4
4.2 Open-Source Science Development Plan
Proposals must include an Open-Source Science Development Plan that describes
how the scientific information resulting from the work will be made openly available.
The Open-Source Science Development Plan must conform to the information policies
of the SMD Division most relevant to the proposal. For proposals that span more than
one SMD Division and for which no Division-specific guidance on data and software
sharing is available, the plan may follow the general provisions in the Earth Science
Division guidelines. The plan must describe the management of the data, software,
and publications developed as part of the project and how they will be released openly.
If data or software are planned to be created as part of the project, the Open-Source
Science Development Plan must include data management and software management
sections describing how data and software will be managed, archived, and shared
openly. The plan can also include any other activities that will support the sharing of
scientific information.
The plan may be up to two pages, must be anonymized for dual-anonymous peer
review (see Section 4.3), and is included in the main proposal PDF. This section
immediately follows the references and citations for the S/T/M section of the proposal
and does not count toward the five-page limit of the S/T/M section. This Open-Source
Science Development Plan replaces the standard ROSES requirement for a Data
Management Plan.
4.3 Preparing Proposals for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review
Proposals submitted to this program will be evaluated using a dual-anonymous peer
review (DAPR) process in which not only are proposers unaware of the identity of the
reviewers, the reviewers are not told the identity of the proposers until after the
evaluation of the aspects of the proposal that don’t include the identity of the proposers
(see below). The objective of dual-anonymous peer review is to minimize bias in the
evaluation of the merit of a proposal.
Proposers must follow the instructions in the "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals"
document under "Other Documents" on the NSPIRES page for this program element
that explains how to properly prepare the proposal for dual-anonymous peer review.
The forms filled out on the NSPIRES web pages with Proposal Summary, Budget,
Proposal Team and Program Specific and Business Data known as the NSPIRES
"cover pages" will be partly hidden for the peer reviewers. The Proposal Summary must
be anonymized but all other sections of the NSPIRES cover page should be completed
as normal and NSPIRES will hide the identifying information from the reviewers. The
proposal document must be anonymized, and proposers must upload a separate
"Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document, that contains all of the
personally (and organizational) identifying information.
Review panels will be instructed to evaluate the anonymized proposals without taking
into account the qualifications and capabilities of the proposers. After the evaluation of
the aspects of the proposal that don’t require the identity of the proposers has been
finalized for all proposals, panelists will be provided with the "Expertise and Resources
Not Anonymized" documents for proposals that scored in the selectable range. The

F.15-5
panel will then assess the qualifications and capabilities of the team for these proposals
and provide comments to NASA.
A summary of the key requirements for anonymized proposals, reproduced from the
"Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" document, is listed below:
Item Requirement
Proposal Document In addition to anonymizing the content, ensure that any PDF
PDF file bookmarks are anonymous, and the document properties do
not reveal names of author or organization.
Science-Technical- The S/T/M section must be anonymized. Omit all names of
Management (S/T/M) team members and names of their organizations.
section of proposal
References References must be in the [1], [2] format.
Open-Source Open-Source Science Development Plan must be
Science anonymized, see Section 4.2.
Development Plan
Biographical Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Sketches separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Table of Personnel Include in an anonymized fashion (e.g., PI; Co-I#1; Co-I#2) in
and Work Effort the main proposal document and in non-anonymized fashion
in the separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Current and Pending Do not include in main proposal document. Include in
Support separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document.
Letters or Statements All Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support,
Feasibility or Endorsement are to be included in the separate
"Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized" document
Redacted Budget Include both redacted budget and narrative in proposal
and Narrative document in an anonymized format.
Facilities and The Facilities and Equipment Section is to be placed only in
Equipment the separate "Expertise and Resources Not Anonymized"
document. However, the S/T/M Section of the anonymized
proposal should address the need for and capabilities of
facilities and equipment necessary for the proposed research
in an anonymized fashion. Any unique/identifying descriptions
of facilities and evidence of access to or affiliation with
facilities are to be included in the separate "Expertise and
Resources Not Anonymized" document.
Separate "Expertise Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
and Resources Not Attachment Type = "Expertise and Resources Not
Anonymized" Anonymized". This document provides a list of all team
document members, their roles, institutional affiliations, expertise, and
contributions to the work. The document should also discuss

F.15-6
 any specific resources that are key to completing the
proposed work, as well as a summary of work effort.
Statements of Current and Pending Support must also be
included.
Total Budget Upload as a separate document in NSPIRES. Choose
Attachment Type = Total Budget. The mandatory total budget
file is full and complete with all costs for those at U.S.
organizations, including those at government laboratories. It is
not redacted or anonymized.
High-End Computing Submit optional not-anonymized PDF HEC form as
(HEC) request attachment type "Optional HEC request" in NSPIRES. The
S/T/M section in the main proposal must state that a HEC
request is included and must provide an outline of the
computing resources required in an anonymized fashion.

5. Proposal Review and Evaluation

Proposals will be evaluated against the three evaluation criteria: Intrinsic Merit,
Relevance, and Cost, as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and as described in Section VI(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
In addition to the definitions given in Appendix D of the Guidebook for Proposers, the
evaluation of proposals submitted to this element will include the following
additions/clarifications:
A. The evaluation of Relevance will include the alignment of the project with either
the themes identified in Section 3.4 or the NASA SMD Science Vision and
Strategy for Data Management and Computing for Groundbreaking Science
2019-2024.
B. The evaluation of Merit will include an assessment of impact in the scientific
community. The relevant scientific community should be identified as part of the
proposal.
C. The evaluation of the impact factor of Merit will include the extent to which the
proposers appropriately describe how project materials will be made openly
available as part of the Open-Source Science Development Plan. The Open-
Source Science Development Plan must conform to the scientific information
policies of the SMD Division most relevant to the proposal.
Although not part of the peer review process, the selection official may take into account
programmatic considerations, see Section V(b) of the ROSES SoS. In particular,
proposals that would support the OSSI across the SMD scientific community may be
given priority, though proposals for work corresponding to an individual SMD Division
are also welcome.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected annual program budget $300,000 per year, see Section 3.3
for new awards

F.15-7
Number of new awards pending
adequate proposals of merit
Maximum duration of awards
Due date for Notice of Intent to
propose (NOI)
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of
investigation
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview
of this solicitation
General requirements for content
of proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Website for submission of
proposal via NSPIRES
Website for submission of
proposal via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application
package from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program both of whom share this
address:
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
3-5 proposals
1 year
No Notices of Intent are requested for this
program element.
Proposals may be submitted at any time until
11:59 PM (Eastern time) on March 29, 2023.
Typically, no earlier than 6 months after the
proposal submission date.
5 pages; see Section 4. Also Table 1 of ROSES-
2022 and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
See Section 3.4. Proposals that are relevant to
this program element are, by definition, relevant
to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See Table 1 of ROSES-2022 and Section IV of
the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and Section
IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is required or permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available
at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)
https://www.grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-HPOSS
Steven Crawford
Telephone: (410) 338-6386
Email: steven.m.crawford@nasa.gov
Rachel Paseka
Telephone: (202) 731-3575
Email: rachel.e.paseka@nasa.gov
F.15-8
F.16 SUPPLEMENT FOR SCIENTIFIC SOFTWARE PLATFORMS
NOTICE: Amended December 1, 2022. This program element, which
was previously listed as TBD, will not be solicited in ROSES-2022. It
has been deferred to ROSES-2023, which will be released in February
2023.
1. Scope of Program
With the growth in data volumes and complex tools, scientific analysis platforms will
play an increasingly important role in the scientific process. For the purposes of this
program element, scientific analysis platforms are defined as interactive environments
accessible through a web browser that provide access to data and computing resources
to support scientific analysis and processing. The platforms can provide the computing
resources and tools that are co-located with the scientific data to allow for processing,
analysis, visualization, or other services that would not be typically available via desktop
computing or small computer clusters. This includes services running in a cloud
environment or providing access to resources for artificial intelligence and machine
learning. SMD seeks proposals for supplemental support to existing awards for use of
such platforms for science. This program will have a rolling deadline when released.
2. Point of Contact
Steven Crawford
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Telephone: (410) 338-6386
Email: steven.m.crawford@nasa.gov

F.16-1
F.17 ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND POLICY ANALYSES OF ORBITAL DEBRIS AND SPACE
U

SUSTAINABILITY
NOTICE: March 17, 2022. This amendment adds this new program
element to ROSES-2022. No preliminary statement (such as a notice
of intent nor a step-1 proposal) is requested. Proposals are due June
17, 2022.
1. U Background
Analyzing the economic, social, and political impacts of orbital debris is a nascent field
of study that would greatly benefit from more research. To this end, NASA will work with
selected teams and experts from non-governmental organizations (e.g., university,
industry, research non-profit) to evaluate to evaluate the economic, social, and political
elements of orbital debris and space sustainability, a strategic NASA and/or United
States Government approach to orbital debris, and international space sustainability
efforts.
A variety of multidisciplinary research groups focused on the orbital debris problem
currently exist in the U.S. and internationally. This study effort will focus on U.S.-based
non-governmental organizations, while a complementary effort led by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) will garner contributions from
international universities, and host conferences that both U.S. and international teams
may participate in.
2. U Scope of Program
Orbital debris research traditionally focuses on the critical task of understanding the
physical space environment (characterizing debris, modeling proliferation, evaluating
technical remediation and mitigation approaches, etc). This research call seeks to
expand upon this important work by integrating physical and social science research.
Space sustainability is a highly complex problem that will require an interdisciplinary
approach. We seek original research that will yield insight into the economic, social,
political and other factors that both exacerbate and may yield potential solutions to the
problem.
Preference will be given to teams that feature a strong interdisciplinary research and
analysis approach or interdisciplinary teams that feature expertise in both social
sciences (economics, econometrics, policy analysis) and physical sciences (physics,
engineering).
To be eligible, a proposal must be submitted by a non-governmental organization.
Teams may include member(s) that are employees of, or affiliated with, the government,
but the majority (>50%) of the team must be non-governmental.
Example research areas:
1) The development of an integrated behavioral-physical model of the orbital debris
environment, including the use of existing probabilistic debris models and
evaluations of the potential impacts of various mitigation approaches (e.g., greater
compliance with 25-year de-orbit guidelines, expanded insurance requirements,
Active Debris Remediation, etc).

F.17-1
2) The development of new indicators to measure trends in the space environment
such as launch intensity, mass and quantity of satellites and other material launched
into orbit, estimates of orbit capacity, fragmentation events, insurance premiums,
satellite licensing, etc.
3) A more comprehensive evaluation of the risk of space debris, including the
probability and severity of physical and economic impacts (both on orbit and on
Earth).
2.1 ExclusionU

Proposals to develop probabilistic debris models are not solicited, and proposers are
encouraged to utilize existing models such as the Orbital Debris Engineering Model
(ORDEM) model developed by the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office:
https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/modeling/ .
27TU U27T

2.2 Timeline
June 17, 2022: Proposals Due
July/August, 2022: Announce selections
February 2023: Interim workshop with research teams
June 16, 2023: Final projects due. Prepare for publishing
June/July 2023: Proposed timeframe for conference to present results
3. Proposal Preparation, Submission, and Evaluation
Table 1 ROSES-2022 provides a checklist the default components of a ROSES
27T 27T

proposal.
No preliminary statement (such as a notice of intent nor a step-1 proposal) is requested.
Proposals must be submitted by the date given in Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in Section IV(b)ii of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation . Violation of these rules is sufficient grounds to
27T 27T

reject a proposal without review.

3.1 Evaluation and Selection
All proposals will be evaluated for Intrinsic Merit, Relevance, and Cost Reasonableness,
as defined in Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and as specified in
27T 27T

Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation .

27T 27T

The selecting official will be the Associate Administrator for Office of Technology, Policy
and Strategy. We anticipate sending out selection notifications in late July/early August.
3.2 Data Management Plan
Proposals submitted to this program need not include a Data Management Plan (DMP).
However, proposers are reminded that if an award is made the standard requirements
and expectations regarding release of supporting data and code still apply, see Section
II.c of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation . For example, the information needed to
27T 27T

validate the scientific conclusions of peer-reviewed publications resulting from an

award, including data underlying figures, maps, and tables, must be made available at
the time of publication, publicly and electronically in a place where it can be found and it
is likely to persist, e.g., in the supplemental material of the article, a community-

F.17-2
endorsed repository, a NASA repository such as data.nasa.gov or a repository
supported by a division, or a combination of different resources as would be most
appropriate to the data being shared.
Awardees will be expected to present their results at a future conference (either hosted
by NASA or a NASA/OECD/Other Space Agency event) and/or in a NASA-sponsored or
approved publication.
4. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~ $100 K
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~ 3-5
adequate proposals of Intrinsic Merit
Maximum duration of awards 1 year
Due date for mandatory NOIs See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Due date for full proposals See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
Planning date for start of investigation September 1, 2022
Page limit for the central 15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES .
27T 27T

Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of
This program is relevant to the questions and
goals of the Science Mission Directorate as
described in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program
are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES Summary of Solicitation .
27T 27T

this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
See Table 1 and Section IV of the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation, and Section 3 of the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
27T 27T

submission of proposals of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and

27T 27T

Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of

Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposals
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-ESPOD

F.17-3
Point of contact concerning this Patrick Besha
program Email: patrick.besha@nasa.gov
27T 27T

F.17-4
F.18 INNOVATION CORPS PILOT
NOTICE: Amended May 27, 2022. This amendment presents a new
program element in ROSES-2022. Neither a Step-1 proposal nor a
notice of intent is requested. Proposals will be internally reviewed, so
proposals need not be redacted, and no separate "Total Budget" is
requested. No Data Management Plans are expected, see section 4.1.
Short course proposals may be submitted at any time but will be
reviewed on a regular schedule, see Tables F.18-1 and F.18-4 for
details. Questions and answers will be posted on the NSPIRES page
for this program element, under the heading "Other documents”.
1. Funding Opportunity Description
1.1 Introduction
The NASA Innovation Corps (I-Corps) Pilot is intended to provide support for
participation in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Innovation Corps (I-Corps™)
Program to train faculty, students in higher education, post-docs, and other researchers
in innovation and entrepreneurship skills. The pilot employs education through virtual
courses to guide teams in the process of developing a business model while supporting
teams as they explore the commercial potential of their research. NASA’s Science
Mission Directorate (SMD) and Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) are
partnering to expand the agency’s participation by leveraging the infrastructure of NSF’s
I-Corps Program and National Innovation Network.
1.2 Pilot Goal
The goal of this NASA I-Corps Pilot is to give teams the opportunity to develop the
following capabilities:
• Informed decision-making to facilitate research and/or technology transitions and
new NASA funding opportunities.
• Facilitated focus and inspiration on the commercial potential of proposed
research and/or technology.
• Advanced workforce development opportunities in science missions and space
technology by preparing students with a foundational education in
entrepreneurship.
• Enhanced entrepreneurial mindsets.
1.2.1 Key Features
The NASA I-Corps Pilot is aimed to accelerate the translation of promising ideas from
the lab to the marketplace. All pilot teams are required to take a Regional Short Course
(hereinafter Short Course) offered by an NSF I-Corps sponsored Hub. While the NSF
Hubs do not provide geographic representation for all regions of the U.S., teams are
encouraged to participate in the Hubs of nearest geographic proximity. Courses are
provided virtually.
Teams that complete the Short Course may propose to take the National Course, see
below. The NSF I-Corps National Course (referred to on the NSF website as "I-Corps
Cohorts") is offered throughout the year. The steps for National Course participation are

F.18-1
described in other sections, including Table F.18-5. Courses have limited capacity, and
each course will be comprised of teams that are working on a broad range of topics
(i.e., not exclusively science missions and space technologies).
1.2.2 Team Composition
For both the Short and National Course, a NASA I-Corps Pilot team must include a
Technical Lead, an Entrepreneurial Lead, and an Industry Mentor. The Technical Lead
serves as the Principal Investigator (PI) of the award, the Entrepreneurial Lead should
be listed as a Co-I, and the Industry Mentor as a collaborator. The Technical Lead
provides a deep and direct technical expertise in the relevant core research and/or
technology area the I-Corps team is exploring. The Entrepreneurial Lead has relevant
knowledge of the research and/or technology area and guides translation of the
research and/or technology if the project demonstrates the potential for commercial
viability. The Industry Mentor is responsible for advising the team through the duration
of the course(s) and usually has contacts in the industry area being explored. The
Industry Mentor may not receive a stipend or consultancy fees through the grant.
1.2.3 Summary of Training Activities
All team members of a NASA I-Corps Pilot award are required to participate in the entire
Short Course and, if selected, the entire National Course. The curriculum, delivered
exclusively in an online format, includes a kick-off meeting with entrepreneurial
immersion training, a weekly training meeting, weekly office hours with I-Corps
instructors, and a lessons-learned closing presentation. The main activity of the
program is to develop a business model through customer discovery, where the team
leaves the lab to evaluate potential product-market fit. A team will conduct many
interviews with potential customers during both courses. NASA I-Corps Pilot teams are
encouraged to travel for in-person customer interviews when feasible. At the end of the
Short Course curriculum, teams are expected to have conducted at least thirty (30)
virtual or in-person interviews with potential customers (including government agencies)
and from their proposed target market(s). At the end of the National Course, teams are
expected to have performed at least one hundred (100) virtual or in-person interviews
with potential customers (including government agencies) from their proposed target
market(s). The interviews provide teams with the customer data needed to refine their
hypotheses – ultimately resulting in a more viable business model.
2. Award Information
Through the NASA I-Corps Pilot, NASA will fund participation in two types of NSF I-
Corps courses as grants to non-profit (non-governmental) organizations. The funding for
the National course, if applicable may be either an augmentation to the existing short
course grant, or it may be a new award, depending on the timing. All pilot teams are
required to take a Short Course offered by an NSF I-Corps sponsored Hub. The funding
for a NASA I-Corps Pilot Short Course award may not exceed $10,000. Awarded teams
that complete a Short Course may have the opportunity to apply for funds to support
their involvement in the I-Corps National Course. The funding for a NASA I-Corps Pilot
National Course award may not exceed $40,000. NASA expects to make approximately
12-30 Short Course grants and approximately 12 National Course grants from the

F.18-2
proposals to this program element. Actual program budget and number of awards are
subject to appropriations and the availability of funds.
2.1 Eligibility
Only non-profit (non-governmental) organizations are eligible to propose. Civil servants
are not eligible to participate. A Technical Lead may not hold more than one currently
active NASA I-Corps Pilot Short Course or National Course award. Proposing team(s)
need not have received a previous NASA award to apply. However, proposals must
show alignment with SMD and/or STMD strategic objectives (see Section 4.2).
3. Proposal and Submission Information
Application for funding requires that:
1) All members of the proposal team have an active account in NSPIRES. Users
registering for a new account should go to https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/
and click on the Registration Information tab.
2) The PI must be affiliated with an organization registered in NSPIRES
3) Short Course proposal submitted at any time during the open period of ROSES
but will be reviewed on a regular schedule that correlates to the Short Course
schedule, see Table F.18-1.
Table F.18-1 Timeline to Participate in Short Course
Dates
Short Course proposals may be submitted at any time, until March 29, 2023, but the
cut-offs for quarterly reviews timed to correspond to course dates are: (a) July 22,
2022; (b) September 16, 2022; (c) November 17, 2022; (d) January 20, 2023.
Notification Target Dates*: (a) September 2022; (b) November 2022; (c) January
2023; (d) March 2023.
Target award start dates, depending on submission date*: (a) October 2022; (b)
December 2022; (c) February 2023; (d) April 2023.
*Subject to Change
An awarded team will have the flexibility to sign-up for the course that best suits the
team members’ schedules. Dates for upcoming courses will be posted via the Hubs'
webpages including the Great Lakes Regional Hub, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Hub,
the New York Regional Hub, the Northeast Regional Hub, and the West Regional Hub.
Awarded teams may apply through the Hub’s webpage for the desired Short Course.
The NASA I-Corps Pilot teams will be ineligible for additional funding offered by the
Hubs for participation in the Short Course.
The steps following submission will follow Table F.18-2, below.
3.1 Proposal Submission
Proposals must be submitted electronically via NSPIRES or grants.gov by an
Authorized Organizational Representative of a U.S. organization consistent with the
eligibility requirements in Section 2.1. If submitting via NSPIRES, team members must
confirm their participation online. See the NSPIRES page on adding team members.

F.18-3
 Table F.18-2 Short Course Proposal Actions
Steps Action
1 Short Course proposal submitted in accordance with timeline provided in Table
F.18-1.
2 Internal NASA review of compliant proposals (see Section 4.1).
3 Notification of Short Course selections via NSPIRES.
4 Grants for Short Course issued to selected teams.
5 Teams apply through the Hub’s webpage (see Section 2.1) for the desired
Short Course.
6 Awarded teams complete Short Course.
4. Proposal Contents
The required components for both the Short Course and the separate National Course
proposals – with page limits – are provided in Table F.18-3 below. Proposals must
include both the NSPIRES cover page (web interface) budget and a budget justification
in the proposal. Follow Table 1 of ROSES for a list of the baseline required
components, but where the instructions below differ from Table 1 of ROSES, this
program element takes precedence.
Table F.18-3: Parts of Proposals
Components Section Title Required/As Differs from Maximum
Needed default page length
instructions
(Yes/No)
1 Table of Contents Required Yes 1
2 Science/Technology Required Yes 6
Management: Alignment
and Future Customer
Summary
3 References As Needed No No limit
4 Biographical Sketches: Required Yes 2 pages per
Team Overview team
member
5 Table of Personnel and Required No No limit
Work Effort
6 Current and Pending Required No No limit
Support
7 Budget Justification Required No No Limit
4.1 No Data Management Plan
A Data Management Plan is not required and thus not part of the proposal evaluation.
However, if an award is made, the default requirement to make available manuscript
versions of peer reviewed publications and associated data still apply. Moreover, in
cases of awards that result in code, sharing is required when it is practical, feasible, and
facilitates scientific utility. For more information, see Section IIc of the ROSES-2022
Summary of Solicitation. Proposals that do not meet the requirements or are deemed to

F.18-4
be not relevant to SMD and/or STMD strategic priorities may be considered non-
responsive and returned without review. An NSPIRES Cover Page will be required and
automatically generated with no page limit.
4.2 Science/Technology Management: Alignment and Future Customer Summary
The S/T/M section must not exceed 6 pages, must be compliant with the formatting
constraints of ROSES-2022, and must contain only the following sections in the
following order:
The Science/Technology Management: Alignment and Future Customer Summary and
must include a project description consisting of:
• Project Title;
• Description of the significance and/or impact of the proposed research and/or
technology to be advanced through NASA I-Corps Pilot including, if applicable
the Technology Readiness Level value (TRL) or indication of commercialization
potential of the proposed research and/or technology;
• Proposals must include a brief statement describing how the underlying science
and/or technology aligns with one or both of the Mission Directorate’s strategic
objectives:
o For relevance to SMD, proposers may refer to the NASA Science Strategy or
Plan for the Science Mission Directorate entitled Science 2020-2024: A Vision
for Scientific Excellence or to the SMD division research overviews (i.e., A.1,
B.1, C.1, D1, E.1, F.1) found in Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES.
o At the time of publication of this element, STMD is in the process of
developing a space technology framework:
www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/strategic_framework. Some areas of
that technology framework are publicly available, and others will be released
throughout 2022. NASA has also issued a Technology Taxonomy that
articulates the technology development disciplines through a Technology
Area Breakdown Structure (TABS). The TABS provides the detailed
contextual information relating to enabling space technologies that address
the needs of exploration systems, Earth and space science, and space
operations mission areas, as well as those that contribute to critical national
and commercial needs. Additional details are located at the webpage:
www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/taxonomy/index.html. Because the space
technology framework is not complete, proposers may describe how their
underlying technology aligns with either the space technology framework or
the NASA Taxonomy Area(s) the proposed technology addresses, whichever
is most relevant.
• Provide identification of commercial application(s) and market(s) for the proposed
technology;
• Describe the types of customers the team plans to interview and examples.
Provide a sample list (minimum of 10) of potential customers for the targeted
market(s);

F.18-5
 • Provide what steps the team would take to move the project closer to
commercialization (i.e., first-trial marketplace, manufacturing partnering,
marketing, etc.).
4.3 Team Overview
Each proposal requires three (3) team members: Technical Lead, Entrepreneurial Lead,
and Industry Mentor. A biographical sketch (of up to 2-pages) for each team member is
required. The biographical sketch should highlight technical expertise and track records
in successful technology and business development, including all NASA research
awards related to this technology, if applicable. All team members must be named on
the NSPIRES cover pages and in the proposal and thus confirm their participation
online. See the NSPIRES page on adding team members.
4.4 Budget Justification
An NSPIRES cover page budget is required for each proposal. Include the following
costs in Section F: line two (2) include any book fees associated with the course, line
four (4) include any virtual tools or subscription services required. The Short Course is
offered at no cost but for the National Course proposals only, include in Section F line
three (3) of the NSPIRES cover page (web interface) budget any costs up to $5,000
associated with fees to participate in the National Course.
Each proposal must include a budget justification section consistent with the Section IV
of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
4.5 Funding Guidance
• Funds should be set aside for customer discovery activities and tools to facilitate
course participation and requirements. It is expected that customer discovery will be
the largest portion of the NASA I-Corps Pilot budget. Domestic travel to conduct in-
person meetings is an encouraged customer discovery activity.
• Funds may be used for virtual or in-person conference attendance, including travel,
if the conference is used specifically for customer discovery.
• Funds may be used for virtual tools to facilitate customer interviews such as Zoom
Meeting subscriptions, LinkedIn Premium membership, inexpensive headsets,
Dropbox (used for participation), and recommended books.
• Funds may not be used for technical research and development (R&D) work, which
includes facility fees or materials and supplies for research.
• The National Course budget proposal must include $5,000 per team to cover
participation fees in the required course.
4.6 Proposal and Schedule Requirements for National I-Corps Course
Upon completion of the Short Course, application for additional funding consists of the
following four major steps:
1) Team requests and obtains a letter of recommendation from a Short Course
senior staff member. Team submits letter via email to the NASA Point of Contact.
2) The team submits an Executive Summary for NSF I-Corps program through the
webpage: https://nsfiip.force.com/icorps.
3) Team interviews with the NSF I-Corps Program staff.

F.18-6
 4) If invited to apply after steps (1-3), team submits a National Course proposal.
Invited teams will follow Sections 4.1-4.5 as outlined for the Short Course. The Short
Course proposal may serve as a starting point for the National Course proposal as
needed and based on the results obtained in the Short Course.
Invited teams may submit an I-Corps National Course proposal at any time but:
• Applications will be reviewed on a regular schedule that correlates to the National
Course schedule, see Table F.18-4
• The 2023 version of this program element will be released with ROSES-2023 on
February 14, 2022, at which point new proposals should be submitted to that.
However, this program element will remain open for the submission of proposals
already in progress until March 29, 2023.
Table F.18-4 Timeline to Participate in National Course

Short Course Completion and National Approximate National Course Award

Course Proposals may be submitted at any Start Date
time but applications will be reviewed for
participation in the National Course in the
right column, if received by:

November 18, 2022 Winter 2023 ~January-February 2023

January 27, 2023 Spring 2023 ~March-June 2023

April 7, 2023 via ROSES-2023 (anticipated) Summer 2023 ~June-September 2023

The full process for National Course (optional continuation and potential additional
funding) is detailed in Table F.18-5 upon completion of the Short Course. The NSF I-
Corps Program webpage will highlight National Course available dates. If the team
pursues this option, the team must request and obtain a letter of recommendation from
a Short Course senior staff member where the team completed the Short Course. The
team submits an Executive Summary for NSF I-Corps program through the webpage:
https://nsfiip.force.com/icorps. Teams may be invited to interview with the NSF I-Corps
Program staff. Teams will be notified if they were selected to be invited to submit a
National Course proposal to NSPIRES.
Teams are encouraged to complete both courses one year from their award start. The
timing and process is up to the proposing team and dependent on when the team
submits their proposal(s). It is anticipated that this element will be solicited again in
ROSES-2023. A team may be awarded for participation in the Short Course from
applying to ROSES-2022 and awarded an augmentation (or a new award) for
participation in the National Course from applying to either ROSES-2022 or ROSES-
2023, depending on the timing.

F.18-7
 Table F.18-5 Process for National Course

Steps Action
7 The team requests a letter of recommendation from a Short Course senior
staff member and must email to the NASA I-Corps Point of Contact.
8 The team submits an Executive Summary for NSF I-Corps program through
the webpage: https://nsfiip.force.com/icorps. The letter of recommendation
may be requested as necessary. A webpage providing information on how to
submit an Executive Summary: www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/i-
corps/teams/guide.jsp.
9 Team interviews with an NSF I-Corps Program staff member.
10 The team will receive notification whether they are invited to submit a
proposal through NSPIRES for their team to participate in the NASA I-Corps
National Course.
11 If invited, the team submits a proposal to NSPIRES. Proposal requirements
are the same for the National Course as they are for the Short Course see
Section 4.1. For National Course dates, see Section 4.6 and Table F.18-4.
12 Internal NASA review of compliant proposals (see Section 4.1).
13 Notification of National Course selections via NSPIRES.
14 Grants for National Course issued to selected teams.
15 Awarded teams sign-up and complete National Course.
5. Evaluation
Proposals will be evaluated for both the Short and National Course by NASA personnel
against the three evaluation criteria: Intrinsic Merit, Relevance, and Cost as defined
below. Failure of a proposal to be rated highly in any one of these factors may cause
the proposal not to be selected.
The evaluation of Intrinsic Merit for both the Short and National Course proposals will be
based on the definition of Merit below, which replaces the standard one in Appendix D
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers:
A) Intrinsic Merit
i. The team’s likelihood for success, including: the composition of the team,
the appropriateness of the assigned roles of team members.
ii. The expected significance and/or impact of the proposed research and/or
technology.
iii. The commercialization potential of the proposed research and/or
technology.
For relevance and cost, the evaluation standard criteria are as defined in the NASA
Guidebook for Proposers, but the following considerations are highlighted as especially
applicable:
B) Relevance
i. The alignment of the proposal with the stated goal of the NASA I-Corps
Pilot (Section 1.2).
ii. Assessment of the proposal goals and objectives for priorities of SMD
and/or STMD (Section 4.2).

F.18-8
 C) Cost
i. The reasonableness of the proposed costs in accordance with Section
4.2.
ii. The adequacy of the requested budget for the proposed activities and
Science/Technology Management: Alignment and Future Customer
Summary activities.
iii. The appropriateness of the time commitment of team members, and the
reasonableness of those commitments considering the team members’
other commitments.
The selection official(s) may take into account programmatic considerations such as
impact on current or future missions, balance across: subdisciplines, source of funding
for subject invention/technology, technologies, methodologies, career stage, risk,
innovation, and types of institutions.
6. Award Administration and Post-Award Activity
Awardees must submit (via email to the Point of Contact in Section 7) an interim report,
as described below, no fewer than 12 weeks after completion of the Short Course and
prior to submitting a proposal for the National Course, if applicable. Reporting on the
results of the National Course, if applicable, must be provided as part of the standard
final grant report submitted via email to the Point of Contact in Section 7 and to NSSC-
Grant-Report@mail.nasa.gov.
The interim and final reports must summarize the overall progress and learning made
by the team in the reporting period, the outcomes of the work, and the project's post-
award vision. The interim and final reports must articulate the customer segments
explored, what changes to plans were made, and how the team sees their value
proposition and business model.
Include, as needed and relevant:
• Patent applications;
• Patents granted and derived or both;
• Licensing agreements (including any licenses of NASA technology);
• Company formation;
• Royalties realized;
• Federal funding and/or proposals for federal funding under review (with agency
name and date submitted);
• Third party financing;
• Enhanced entrepreneurial mindset of researchers;
• Enhanced career trajectories of team members;
• Enhanced research and/or technology insight or conclusions;
• Other additional achievements, progress, impacts.

For the purposes of evaluating the impact of the NASA I-Corps Pilot, proposers may be
asked to provide feedback on the program to help NASA understand actual outcomes
and inform future improvements to the pilot.

F.18-9
7. Summary Table of Key Information
Expected program budget for Short
Course new awards.
Expected program budget for National
Course new awards.
Number of new Short Course awards
pending adequate proposals of merit.
Number of new National Course awards
pending adequate proposals of merit.
Maximum duration of awards for Short
Course and National Course
Due date for Notices of Intent
Due date for Short Course proposals
Due date for National Course proposals
Planning date for start of investigation
Proposal submission page limit including
for the central Science/Technical/
Management section of proposal,
including relevance.
Relevance
General information and overview of this
solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the submission of See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3 of
proposals
Submission medium
Webpage for submission of proposals via
NSPIRES
Webpage for submission of proposals via
Grants.gov
F.18-10
~$120K
~$480K
~12-30
~12
1 year
No Notices of Intent are requested for this
program element.
Short Course Proposals may be
submitted at any time until March 29,
2023, but see Section 2 and Table F.18-1
National Course Proposals may be
submitted at any time until March 29,
2023, see Section 4.6 and Table F.18-4.
See Tables F.18-1 and F.18-4.
See Section 4 and Table F.18-3
See Section 4.2 for relevance to SMD and
STMD
See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers
and ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
Table 1 and Section IV of the ROSES-22
Summary of Solicitation, and Section 3 of
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
as described in Section IV(b) of the
ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is
required; no hard copy is required or
permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376).
http://grants.gov (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726).
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package from
Grants.gov
Point of Contact concerning this pilot.
F.18-11
NNH22ZDA001N-ICOR
Maggie Yancey
Science Mission Directorate and Space
Technology Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Email: margaret.a.yancey@nasa.gov
F.19 MULTIDOMAIN REUSABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TOOLS
NOTICE: Amended October 4, 2022. This amendment presents a new
program element in ROSES-2022. Mandatory Notices of Intent are
due November 9, 2022, and Proposals are due January 13, 2023.
1. Scope of Program
This Multidomain Reusable Artificial Intelligence Tools (MDRAIT) program element
solicits proposals that enable critically needed machine learning tools to advance
Heliophysics and Earth Science research, described in A.1 the Earth Science and
Research overview and B.1 the Heliophysics Research overview. Proposed tool
projects must be Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5, as defined by the Earth Science
Technology Office, at the start of the award and present a convincing plan to mature to
TRL 6 by the end. Further explanation can be found in Section 1.3.
The specific context of this call is guided by the Science Mission Directorate's Strategy
for Data Management and Computing for Groundbreaking Science 2019-2024 with
emphasis on improved ease of use and discoverability of data that enhance science
applications and incorporates best practices and state of the art technologies utilizing
deep learning, machine learning, and artificial intelligence and in applying these
techniques, where meaningful, in an appropriate computing environment.
MDRAIT is a cross-division Program Element solicited by both the Heliophysics and
Earth Science Divisions and proposers interested in this program element should read
A.1 and B.1 for research context and F.1, the Cross-Division Research Overview for
default requirements for proposals to Appendix F. Common requirements for all ROSES
elements and proposals are found in the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the
NASA Guidebook for Proposers, and the order of precedence for proposers is the
following: This document takes precedence followed by F.1, followed by the ROSES
Summary of Solicitation and, finally, the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.
1.1 Background
The emergence of reusable analytic tools in a variety of applications has demonstrated
that there is a growing demand for artificial intelligence (AI) tools that are generalizable,
trustworthy and easy to use. The encapsulation of AI algorithms in Tensorflow, Keras,
SciKit Learn and PyTorch demonstrate the value of this reusability in the scientific
workflow. We anticipate that the following major benefits will derive from the funded
efforts:
• Where appropriate, scientific investigations can quickly leverage validated and
easy-to-use tools without writing their own code for these functions;
• Users can assess their confidence in the tool’s validity by its evaluation in a
range of applications;
• Defects, weaknesses or limitations which are identified by different users can be
corrected by the community to benefit everyone more quickly;
• Tactical investments in the most widely used tools will take them from the artisan
to industrial state quickly, both in terms of functionality as well as scalability.

F.19-1
Where tools like Tensorflow encapsulate the algorithms, allowing the user to decide the
application, other important improvements accelerate the data preparation and analysis
stages of a scientific investigation pipeline. Many scientists develop software tools for
personal or group use in processing observational data and model output, but their
single-context validation, unintuitive/undocumented user interface, or lack of scalability
make them hard to use by others. This program element solicits proposals to transform
these tools to be easily reusable by researchers other than the ones who developed
them.
Furthermore, there is significant effort required to use high value AI libraries (e.g.,
Tensorflow, Scikit, PyTorch, Keras, etc.) directly with Heliophysics and Earth Science
data archives. MDRAIT encourages development of extensions to these AI libraries that
addresses challenges in preparing AI ready data from science data archives.
An example of the kind of capability the MDRAIT initiative is looking to encourage is
‘Sat-Extractor’ shown here: https://github.com/FrontierDevelopmentLab/sat-extractor.
This opportunity is intended to mature and expand the range of users of existing data
grooming or analysis codes and to validate them in multiple domains. The proposed
project should result in a packaged suite of tools needed to perform a function and be
usable without modification in at least two different SMD Divisions (Heliophysics and
Earth Science). Applications and validations to SMD divisions other than Heliophysics
and Earth Science may serve to demonstrate additional impact or significance, but
selection of proposals primarily intended to support needs of divisions other than
Heliophysics and Earth Science may be contingent on funding from those divisions.
1.2 Solicited Investigations
MDRAIT seeks innovative adaptations and applications of existing AI techniques,
concepts, methodologies, etc. to demonstrate their feasibility and potential to increase
science return, as well as to inform both Heliophysics and Earth science research
disciplines of promising techniques and capabilities.
MDRAIT is intended to enable heliophysics and Earth science research to adopt AI
tools to perform common functions. Notional areas of interest for proposals include, but
are not limited to:
● Superresolution of imagery data
● De-noising of observational data
● Uncertainty quantification
● Data visualization
● Anomaly visualization
● AI ready data preparation
An example of a successful proposal for superresolution would be a tool that would be
useful for both analyzing the MODIS imager output and analyzing the Solar Orbiter’s
SoloHI instrument output. A successful project shall provide a single tool, with
documentation, an intuitive user interface, and demonstrate scientific value in its
superresolution of the products from each instrument.

F.19-2
Another example of a successful project would be to provide de-noising services for
Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) data and for the Compact Fire Infrared Radiance
Spectral Tracker (c-FIRST), an Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) Instrument
Incubator Program project. At the conclusion of the project, the tool would demonstrate
its ability to de-noise both instrument outputs.
1.3 Limitations in Scope
Proposals outside the scope of this program element include:
• Proposals for work that the proposing organization (or a funded investigator) is
already funded by NASA to conduct. Proposals with funded team members who
are currently funded for related work, must specify how the new proposed effort
is different and not duplicative with currently supported efforts;
• Proposals focused on science analysis or new technology development, such as
the development of a new tool from scratch. Specifically, proposals of tools and
methods not already mature at least to TRL 5 are outside the scope of this
program element.
• Proposals for components to science data processing pipelines (e.g.,
improvements to production of data products).
In some cases, tools currently under development in one SMD Division or the other may
need additional funds for modification to work properly on similar uses in the other SMD
Division. Tool development that is currently funded by an award from other Heliophysics
(Appendix B) or Earth Science Division (Appendix A) program elements is acceptable
as long as the proposed MDRAIT maturation is not already covered by the existing
award. As noted above, it must be TRL 5 or higher at the start of the MDRAIT award.
2. Submission and Evaluation Guidelines
2.1 General Considerations
MDRAIT will use a proposal submission process that requires an NOI prior to proposal
submission. Each Principal Investigator (PI) is allowed to submit one and only one
proposal to this program element. Within the proposing team, the PI and Co-
Investigators (Co-Is) must each have specific and defined tasks in the project, and the
tasks must be essential to the completion of the project. Proposals may be declared
noncompliant if they are outside the scope of the MDRAIT program (see Section 1
above) or if they fail to meet submission guidelines specified below (Sections 2.2-2.3)
2.2 Mandatory NOI
To be eligible, proposals to this program element must have been preceded by a
mandatory Notice of Intent (NOI) to facilitate review planning and thus decrease time
from submission to selection.
The mandatory NOI is restricted to the 4000-character Proposal Summary text box on
the NSPIRES web interface cover pages. It should include the following information:
• A description of the science goals this proposal is enabling in both Heliophysics
and Earth Science and that are appropriate for MDRAIT investigations.
• A brief description of the methodology to be used to mature the tool, including the
final state, the current state and changes needed to achieve the final state. It

F.19-3
 shall include a statement as to the current TRL and the associated rationale. This
will include a description of the AI tools and techniques and the data to be
supported.
• A description of the validation process to demonstrate validity in both science
domains.
• A description of how post-project support will maintain the capabilities of this tool.
The mandatory NOI may be used to determine whether the proposal submitted is
responsive and relevant to the program element, but no further evaluation is performed
for mandatory NOIs.
Along with the mandatory NOI, proposers are strongly encouraged to provide names
and contact information of five experts qualified to review their proposal. These experts
must not be from the institutions of the PI or Co-Is. This information can be supplied in
response to the NSPIRES cover page question at the time of submission of the
mandatory NOI.
2.3 Proposal Format, Content, and Submission
Proposals that are not preceded by a mandatory NOI will be returned without review.
Proposals must follow all formatting requirements that are described in Section IV(b)ii of
the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Violation
of these rules is sufficient grounds to reject a proposal without review.
The Scientific/Technical/Management section of Proposals are restricted to fifteen (15)
pages and must include the following sections with the preferred order:
• The science functionality that would be enabled with the completion of the tool or
method and the perceived impact of the proposed work to the state of knowledge
in the field of science data preparation and/or analysis, (see Section 1);
references to existing work in the field should be limited to that needed to justify
the value of the tool or method;
• The methodology to be employed in developing the tool or method; the proposal
must demonstrate (1) that the methodology is both appropriate and feasible to
make the tool a baseline capability and (2) that the validation of the tool and/or
method is appropriate and makes use of relevant data;
• The methodology for validating the value of the tool in at least two different SMD
domains and the example problem for each;
• The relevance of the proposed work to both Heliophysics and Earth science
research (see Section 1);
• A general plan of work, the management structure for the proposal personnel,
and a description of the expected contribution to the proposed effort by the PI
and each person as identified in the proposal, whether or not they derive support
from the proposed budget. Postdoctoral fellows and students need not be
named.
The software developed under this program element must be designated, developed,
and distributed to the public as Open-Source Software (OSS). Software developed may
be created to operate in conjunction with commercial or other restricted-use software
(such as MATLAB, Envi, or arc-GIS) and environments, but must be licensed
separately.

F.19-4
Consistent with the ROSES default, proposals must include a data management plan of
up to two pages immediately following the references and citations for the main S/T/M
Section. See Section II.c of the ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation. The data
management plan shall include a plan for open-source contribution of the software and,
if applicable, a reuse license. Further licensing guidance can be found on the EarthData
license website. Use of the Heliophysics DMP template is encouraged See
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-
proposals.
3. Evaluation Criteria
All proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria defined in the NASA Guidebook
for Proposers and as specified in Section V(a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
These criteria are Relevance, Merit, and Cost reasonableness. Clarifications and
additions specific to this program element are listed below.
The evaluation of scientific and technical merit will include the following:
• Compelling nature and scientific priority of the proposed investigation's science
goals and objectives to be enabled by completion of the tool and/or method,
including the importance of the problem to both Heliophysics and Earth Science.
Importance to SMD divisions other than Heliophysics and Earth Science may
receive an impact/significance strength for that, but selection of proposals
primarily intended to support needs of divisions other than Heliophysics and
Earth Science may be contingent on funding from those divisions.
• The importance of carrying out the development now.
• Appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology used to develop the tool
and/or method, including the appropriateness of the validation and any relevant
data.
• The quality of the Data Management Plan

4. Available Funds
It is expected that there will be approximately ~$2M available to support new MDRAIT
investigations selected through this program element. Due to the expected 12-month
duration, total funding for the duration is expected to fall in the range of ~$150-$200K
per investigation.
5. Award Types
The MDRAIT program will award funds through three vehicles: (1) grants to non-
governmental organizations, (2) interagency transfers to non-NASA government labs,
and (3) awards to NASA Centers. This program will not award contracts.
6. Summary of Key Information
Expected program budget for first ~ $2M
year of new awards
Number of new awards pending ~ 10-13
adequate proposals of Intrinsic Merit
Maximum duration of awards 12 months

F.19-5
Due date for Mandatory NOI
Due date for proposals
Planning date for start of investigation 6 months after full proposal due date
Page limit for the central
Science/Technical/Management
section of proposal
Relevance
General information and overview of
this solicitation
General requirements for content of
proposals
Detailed instructions for the
submission of proposals
Submission medium
Web site for submission of proposals
via NSPIRES
Web site for submission of proposals
via Grants.gov
Funding opportunity number for
downloading an application package
from Grants.gov
Points of contact concerning this
program, both of whom share the
following postal address:
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters,
Washington, DC
20546-0001
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
See Tables 2 and 3 of this ROSES NRA.
15 pp; see also Table 1 of ROSES-2022.
This program is relevant to the questions and
goals of the Science Mission Directorate as
described in the NASA Science Plan.
Proposals that are relevant to this program
are, by definition, relevant to NASA.
See the ROSES-2022 Summary of
Solicitation.
See ROSES-2022 F.1, Cross Division
Overview, and Section IV and Table 1 of the
ROSES-2022 Summary of Solicitation.
See NSPIRES Online Help, Sections 3.22-4.4
of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and
Section IV(b) of the ROSES Summary of
Solicitation.
Electronic proposal submission is required; no
hard copy is permitted.
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk
available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or
(202) 479-9376)
https://grants.gov/ (help desk available at
support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726)
NNH22ZDA001N-MDRAIT
Lika Guhathakurta
Heliophysics Division
Telephone: (202) 358-1992
Email: madhulika.guhathakurta@nasa.gov
Michael M. Little
Earth Science Division,
Telephone: 301-286-7404,
Email: m.m.little@nasa.gov
F.19-6