Nearly six months after Valentine’s Day, NASA finally put out ROSES, although this year, the program isn’t wooing the science community.

“I’m unfortunately at the end of all my current existing grants, so I need new grants this cycle or I will have to change careers,” said Kathryn Volk, senior scientist at the Tucson-based Planetary Science Institute.

Last week, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate released its annual Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science Unlike most years, which typically see the program released in February, scientists had to wait until mid-summer to get their first glimpse of the funding available. On top of the delay, the total anticipated new awards for ROSES were only a quarter of what was available the previous year.

Within the SMD, there is a pool of money dedicated to Research and Analysis, of which ROSES is a part. The annual call for scientists to submit research proposals allows for places like the Tucson space institute to thrive. Scientists at PSI focus entirely on planetary and celestial body research and those grants provided through ROSES are the backbone of their livelihood.

But this year, there is worry among the scientists that there won’t be enough grants to keep everyone employed. ROSES-25 is currently anticipating around 300 grants being funded, while the previous year saw about 1,500. Planetary science is also seeing a quarter of available anticipated awards, and they aren’t the hardest hit division — Biological and Physical Sciences doesn’t have any NASA ROSES grant opportunities listed so far.

Scientists like Volk and the majority of PSI rely on proposals from programs like ROSES to essentially fund their salaries. Once the proposals are awarded, the grants are given to PSI which then allows scientists to bill their hours. Volk said she is currently billing a minimum of 20 hours a week just to maintain her health benefits.

“I am half-time right now. I have to stretch out my health care as much as possible because I have no other alternatives,” said Volk.

The grants allow scientists to analyze data from other missions and conduct field research; some can even support themselves entirely through this soft money.

The general public hears about the tangible space missions, but to PSI Director, Amanda Hendrix, behind the space missions and spacecrafts; behind all the jet propulsion and autonomous rovers, there’s an even more important team of scientists diligently plugging away at one of the less glamorous jobs in the space industry.

“R&A is sort of like the poor stepchild who gets ignored,” said Hendrix. “It’s not as shiny as the missions and it’s less money, but it is every bit as important as the missions, if not more, I would argue.”

Not only are R&A teams writing proposals to make sure that all the data from a mission is studied, but Hendrix said, another important aspect of the work is fueling future missions.

“Let’s say I want to flesh out a theory by maybe doing some modeling or doing some lab work, maybe using some data from a mission. Or maybe I just want to run some computer models. That’s R&A too,” said Hendrix. “Say I’m going to learn about the interior of Saturn, or at least, model it. I’m going to write a proposal, get some R&A program money, and write my paper. Then that research will ultimately, one day, motivate another mission.”

And that’s the way the cycle has worked. Like clockwork every year, NASA puts out ROSES on Valentine’s Day. This year’s delay comes amid one of the most tumultuous and precarious times in NASA history. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 could potentially see the whole agency’s budget reduced by 25%, setting it back to 1960’s budget levels. As for the SMD, it’s facing a nearly 50% cut, which Hendrix said would make it even harder for scientists to get funding for proposed research.

“The problem is making all of these huge irreversible actions, especially before we have an administrator and before we have a budget, is really damaging,” said Hendrix.

Not only has the budget proposal turned the space industry on its head, but there is leadership instability at the highest ranks of NASA. Last week, President Donald Trump appointed Sean Duffy, the secretary of Transportation, to simultaneously lead NASA as the latest interim administrator. Former interim administrator Janet Petro had been leading NASA since January after the president had appointed her as acting administrator. The Senate has yet to formally confirm an administrator.

Earlier this year, Congress was considering instating Jared Issacman, billionaire tech entrepreneur as NASA chief but was pulled last minute after the president said he “was a blue-blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before,” on a post from July 6 on Truth Social.

Because of the lack of cemented leadership, Hendrix said it only exacerbates the situation.

“We have political appointees at NASA and it’s unclear who’s actually in charge and making these calls to do these things. People working in the SMD who are in charge of these missions are great people, and they’re doing what they can to keep things going, but if they’re being told from above by White House appointees, to shut down missions. You know, it’s just, it’s awful,” said Hendrix.

Congress is in the beginning steps of writing the appropriations bill which would address how much NASA has to spend in the next fiscal year. But according to Casey Dreier, chief of policy at the Planetary Society, the ROSES-25 budget seems to reflect the Trump’s budget proposal —essentially slashing itself preemptively.

“It shows you that NASA, ironically, is out of the loop in its own budget and that they probably had to wait until they saw what the president’s request was before planning as if that will be the reality,” said Dreier.

The Senate and House appropriation committees have put forth a budget draft that favors NASA’s regular budget. The committees for both chambers of Congress have an increase from the president’s budget request with the House asking for $6 billion in NASA science budget and the Senate asking $7.3 billion. The presidents would have seen it cut to $3.9 billion.

It is still possible for ROSES-25 to see an increase in awards, especially if Congress passes a healthy budget that would keep NASA the way it has been. About half of the grant opportunities are still marked as “TBD” and could potentially be given funds and a due date. According to Volk, that would be the first thing she suspects would happen if the budget increased.

“I do understand their worries about not wanting to be too optimistic and then have to claw back funding because I think that is much more damaging to have to unselect things that have been selected,” said Volk.

The new fiscal year begins on October 1, but Volk and Dreier said they have little hope that Congress will pass the appropriations bill on time. What happens to NASA’s budget if there is no bill from Congress is still uncertain. In any other year, Volk said that the previous fiscal year’s budget would be used until a continuing resolution or appropriations bill is passed.

But right before the July 4 holiday weekend, principal investigators were asked by NASA to put a mission shutdown plan into writing, stating how would be achieved by October 1. Across town at the University of Arizona, Dr. Daniella Mendoza DellaGiustina, director of OSIRIS-APEX, had to do just that. She said she was told it was “just a planning exercise” for NASA.

The proposed NASA budget for fiscal year 2026 calls for defunding the University of Arizona-led space mission even though it’s already midway through its operation. Six other UA-led missions are also at risk of losing all their funding.

While the CJS appropriations committees might be pushing for a higher budget than originally anticipated, Volk is still skeptical.

“The fear is that if there’s not a budget passed by October 1, this administration will just go ahead and pretend. Based on the plans being asked for, the fear is that they’re going to switch to the President’s budget request for the NASA budget,” said Volk. “That you won’t be able to undo because that means firing people. They won’t be available to rejoin the mission team, and you don’t have people who literally know how to turn stuff back on.”