NASA Skipped ROSES-26. ROSES-27 Is Due by January 2027, and Nine Science Groups Want the Rules Changed First.

NASA's Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) solicitation is the biggest single entry point for competitive Earth and space science grants in the United States. For most of its history it came out on a predictable schedule: published each February, with dozens of program elements and due dates spread across the following year. Graduate admissions, postdoc hiring, and soft-money salaries at hundreds of institutions depend on that schedule.

That schedule has broken down. In January 2026, NASA said ROSES-2026 would be released in July. It wasn't. On October 20, 2026, NASA's Science Mission Directorate announced that it will release ROSES-2027 "no later than January 2027," with "approximately 50 program elements spanning astrophysics, biological and physical sciences, Earth science, heliophysics, lunar science, planetary science, and cross-disciplinary research." ROSES-26 isn't mentioned. In practice, the 2026 edition has been skipped.

A week later, on October 27, nine scientific and university organizations sent Administrator Jared Isaacman a joint letter with three requests: rescind the June 2026 changes that brought ROSES into line with a White House grant rule that hasn't been finalized, pay out awards already selected, and return to a predictable schedule. The signers are the American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Scientific Society for Astrobiology, Geological Society of America, The Planetary Society, and Universities Space Research Association.

For anyone who depends on NASA science funding, the next 90 days decide the 2027 funding cycle. This post covers what changed, what's still open, and how to plan.

How the Delays Piled Up

When we covered ROSES in August, ROSES-25 had been amended 69 times and extended to December 31, 2026, and the rolling program elements that had carried researchers through the gap were about to close. ROSES-26 still read "pending." It never came out.

The coalition letter gives the clearest example of what that means for funding. The Astrophysics Data Analysis Program (ADAP) had run on a steady cycle for four years: solicitation in February, awards in October. ADAP awards were announced October 8, 2026, which the letter calls "a nearly two-year gap since the last ADAP awards were made under ROSES-24 in October 2024." A program that funds data analysis for existing missions went about 24 months between award rounds.

Selection also no longer means the money is coming. Reporting from the American Institute of Physics' FYI news service found that the gap between selection and disbursement, normally "three months or fewer" according to The Planetary Society's Jack Kiraly, now stretches to as much as a year for some grantees. Award notices that used to say a proposal was "selected" now say it is "eligible for further review." One planetary scientist estimated that a quarter to a third of NASA-funded colleagues in their circle had seen delays. When FYI reported the story, NASA's public grant-status page was "under maintenance."

The letter connects the delays to the next generation of researchers. It cites AIP data showing an 8% drop in graduate enrollment in U.S. physics and astronomy programs in fall 2025, "the largest year-over-year decline since fall 1994."

What Amendment 59 Changed

On or about June 15, 2026, NASA issued Amendment 59 to the ROSES-25 Summary of Solicitation, the front matter that sets default rules for every program element. NASA said the changes were made "to conform with Agency and administration priorities," and pointed to OMB's proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, published May 29, 2026. The coalition singles out three provisions:

Pre-issuance political review. The amended solicitation provides for "pre-issuance review of discretionary awards…which shall involve in-person or virtual discussion of applications…with a senior appointee or that appointee's designee." The coalition calls this a "black box" that would make it "difficult to scrutinize a senior appointee's decision-making record or understand why grants were declined."

Termination for convenience. The update says "awards may be terminated at the convenience of the government." For multi-year awards that pay graduate students, this changes the risk of every budget line.

Preference for lower indirect cost rates. The solicitation now says "all else being equal…preference may be given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates." The letter argues that negotiated rates "represent the true cost of doing research," and that the preference treats grants "as contracts awarded to the lowest bidder."

Amendment 59 also warned that "many types of currently allowable costs, such as but not limited to publications, research or events outside the United States, and domestic conferences may be restricted, denied, or may be allowable by legal exception or special award conditions only" under the OMB proposal.

The coalition says the same language has appeared in solicitations from NASA's Research & Technology Mission Directorate, so the issue isn't limited to science grants.

Why the Legal Status Matters

The OMB rule NASA cited isn't in effect. Congress blocked it in the stopgap funding law. The House passed that bill 370 to 48, and the law bars rules "arising out of" OMB's proposal, or "substantially similar" rules, through December 11. OMB Director Russ Vought has said the rule won't be implemented before January 1.

That leaves NASA in an odd position. Its solicitation contains language modeled on a rule Congress has paused. Whether NASA's own solicitation text counts as a "substantially similar" rule under the stopgap is an open legal question. Other agencies have handled the same pressure differently. The National Science Foundation, after receiving more than 3,000 comments on its own proposed grant-policy changes, revised its proposal and will not, for now, align its grant decisions with the OMB rule.

Congress is also changing. Most federal funding expires December 12, so lawmakers must act on spending within weeks of returning November 9. Democrats won majorities in both chambers on November 3 and have said they will investigate grant terminations at science agencies once the new Congress is seated January 3, 2027. ROSES-27 is due out the same month. That timing makes it likely that the political-review and termination language in ROSES-27's front matter will be negotiated between NASA, OMB, and appropriators in December and January.

What's Open Now Under ROSES-25

ROSES-25 is still accepting proposals while ROSES-27 is prepared. NASA's October 20 notice lists these program elements and dates:

Three dates are still ahead and close soon. Geosphere's mandatory notice of intent is due November 16. Missing it rules you out of the January 15 proposal deadline. Both heliophysics Step-1 deadlines are November 20. Step-1 is usually a short submission, so the cost of filing one is low and missing it closes off the program. For the TCAN and Cryosphere elements, the NOI dates have passed, and only teams that filed NOIs can still submit.

How to Plan

Assume ROSES-27 will arrive late in January with compressed deadlines. When a solicitation slips, the first program elements tend to have short windows, because program offices try to run panels in the same fiscal year. Draft science sections now for the programs you expect to target, based on ROSES-25 text. Most ROSES elements change gradually from year to year, and the October notice lists the same divisions.

Budget for the Amendment 59 rules even if they're later removed. Prepare two versions of your budget justification: one that assumes current negotiated indirect rates and allowable publication and conference costs, and one that shows the science still works if those lines are challenged. If ROSES-27 keeps the low-indirect-rate preference, institutions should decide ahead of time whether to offer voluntary rate reductions on NASA proposals. That decision belongs to the sponsored-programs office and shouldn't be made by an individual PI at submission time.

Plan for selection-to-funding gaps of six to twelve months. Researchers on soft money should not start students or hires based on a selection notice alone. Ask your institution about pre-award spending authority and bridge funding. Think of "eligible for further review" as a likely award without a date, not a confirmed one.

Spread your applications across agencies. NSF's Astronomical Sciences and Earth Sciences divisions, DOE's Office of Science, and private funders such as the Heising-Simons Foundation and the Simons Foundation all support overlapping research areas. A single-agency portfolio is riskier than it used to be.

Document the delays. The coalition is asking members to contact Congress, and AAS has set up a letter tool. Specific cases with dates are what appropriations staff use in oversight: selection date, disbursement date, students not hired. Researchers who keep a dated record of their award history will be better placed to make their case to appropriators once the new Congress begins oversight.

The Bottom Line

NASA skipped a year of its main research solicitation, added terms modeled on a rule Congress has paused, and slowed payment on awards it has already chosen. The coalition's three requests (rescind Amendment 59, pay selected awards, return to a regular schedule) set the terms for the debate over ROSES-27. Researchers can't control how that comes out. They can meet the November 16 and November 20 deadlines that are still open, draft for a January release, and budget for both possible sets of rules.