UK Astronomy Grants 2026: Small Awards for Solar and Planetary Research Explained

If your idea of a good time involves plasma physics, dusty rings, magnetospheres, or gnarly planetary atmospheres, the Astronomy Solar and Planetary Small Awards 2026 should be on your calendar in red ink.

This UKRI / STFC funding call is aimed squarely at people who want to do real solar system science: theory, simulations, software tools, observational work, experiments, and new technology development that will actually move the field forward. Think of it as a focused, flexible funding stream for ambitious but manageable projects that do not need a gigantic consortia-style grant.

The twist: it is called “small awards,” but the timeframe is not small at all. You can be funded for up to three years of research, with projects starting from 1 October 2027. That’s long enough to do serious work: build a new simulation code, reduce a major dataset, develop a new instrument concept, or run a substantial experimental campaign.

The other twist: this is not a free‑for‑all. You must be based at a UK research organisation eligible for STFC funding. If you are a UK-based academic or researcher in solar system science, this is home turf.

Below, we will walk through what this scheme really offers, who it suits best, and how you can give yourself a fighting chance of success.

Astronomy Solar and Planetary Small Awards 2026 at a Glance

What This Opportunity Actually Offers You

Let’s translate the official language into what matters day to day for a researcher.

This call will fund three broad categories of work within solar system science:

1. Theory and Modelling
   This includes analytical theory, numerical modelling, and the development of new simulation codes or frameworks. If you are building a magnetohydrodynamics model of the solar corona, a climate model for exoplanet analogues using solar system validation, or a particle simulation of ring dynamics, you are very much in the right place.

2. Software and Data Tools
   The wording explicitly includes related software development. That can cover bespoke code to handle large spacecraft datasets, pipelines for mission instruments, or open-source tools for the planetary community. If your code will enable new science rather than merely tidy up someone’s desktop, you can make a strong case here.

3. Observation, Experiment, and Technology
   The scheme also covers:

   • Astronomical or in situ observations related to solar system objects or the Sun
   • Laboratory experiments that mimic planetary conditions, plasmas, or materials
   • New technology research, e.g. detector concepts, instrument subsystems, or analysis techniques that will support future missions or facilities

The label “small awards” usually means modest but focused budgets, ideal for projects that are too substantial for a pump‑priming seed grant, but don’t quite rise to the level of a huge multi‑institution platform. You should think in terms of:

• Supporting a postdoc or research assistant for a defined piece of work
• Funding PhD‑related work packages (within your institution’s rules)
• Purchasing specialised equipment or computing resources
• Funding travel and collaboration vital to completing the research
• Supporting software engineering time for widely useful tools

Three years gives you enough time to plan a coherent arc: from concept, through initial results, to publishable, citable outcomes. A well‑constructed project here can also set you up for a future, larger proposal – e.g. an STFC consolidated grant or mission involvement.

Who Should Seriously Consider Applying

This scheme is not for everyone, and that’s a good thing. It means you can tune your application rather than trying to be all things to all funders.

At a minimum, you must be:

• Based at a UK research organisation
  That means a UK university or research institute eligible for STFC / UKRI funding. If you are unsure, your research office can confirm, or you can ask STFC directly.

• Working in solar system science
  This could include:

  • Solar physics and heliophysics
  • Planetary atmospheres and interiors
  • Planetary surfaces, volcanism, and geology
  • Small bodies (asteroids, comets, Kuiper Belt objects)
  • Moons, rings, magnetospheres, and plasma environments
  • Planetary habitability and prebiotic chemistry in a solar system context
  • Space weather and Sun–planet interactions

The call is explicit: this is about “all aspects of solar system science”. If your primary interest is cosmology, galaxy evolution, exoplanets without a clear link to solar system work, or pure stellar astrophysics, you should look at the related astronomy observation and theory opportunity instead.

Good-fit applicant profiles

To make this concrete, here are some people for whom this call is particularly suitable:

• Early- to mid-career academics in solar or planetary science who have a sharp, well-formed idea and need a 3‑year block of funding to produce high‑impact results.

• Researchers building or maintaining key software tools that the UK solar and planetary community uses (or plausibly will use). If your GitHub repo quietly underpins half the field but is running on weekends and goodwill, this is worth a shot.

• Labs doing solar system analogue experiments, whether that’s simulating regolith under vacuum, recreating auroral plasmas, or running high‑pressure experiments to explore planetary interiors.

• Technology developers with an eye on future missions or observatories – for example, testing instrument components, prototype detectors, or novel data acquisition methods that are tightly linked to solar system science.

• Collaborations between observers, modellers, and experimenters who want to tackle one specific problem from several angles, but don’t need a huge consortium grant to do it properly.

If you are on a temporary contract, it’s still possible to be involved, but you’ll need to work out with your institution who will be PI, how your position will be supported, and how the project will be hosted. Don’t guess: talk to your research office and your head of group early.

What This Opportunity Offers Beyond Money

The money matters, but the structural benefits matter just as much.

First, three years of stability in a project is no small thing. It allows you to:

• Plan hires sensibly, instead of surviving on one‑year patchwork contracts.
• Design simulations or experiments that take time to mature.
• Follow up on unexpected results instead of abandoning them when seed funding ends.

Second, being funded under an STFC programme raises your visibility in the community. When panels select your project, they are effectively saying, “We think this is worth the community’s collective money.” That helps when you:

• Apply for future grants
• Pitch your work to mission teams
• Negotiate institutional support or promotion

Third, this scheme is a good training and mentorship platform. You can use it to:

• Support a postdoc and give them genuine independence
• Provide a PhD student with a coherent, fundable project framework
• Build collaborations with other UK or international groups in a structured way

Finally, because there is a separate call for astronomy observation and theory, this scheme is more sharply focused on solar and planetary work. That can improve your chances if you write a well‑targeted proposal rather than competing with absolutely everyone in astrophysics.

Insider Tips for a Winning Application

Plenty of strong science does not get funded because the proposal fails at the basics. Here are specific ways to stack the odds in your favour.

1. Be ruthlessly specific about your solar system focus

Do not assume reviewers will “infer” the relevance. Spell it out.

If you’re doing plasma physics, link directly to solar wind, magnetospheres, or coronal heating.
If you’re building a general‑purpose code, show exactly how it will be used for solar or planetary questions, not just “could in principle apply.”

A good rule: if someone from outside your subfield read your first page, they should be able to say, “Yes, this is unmistakably solar system science, and here is the piece of it.”

2. Design a project that fits comfortably in three years

Avoid the temptation to propose a ten-year research agenda jammed into a 36‑month window.

Break the project into clear, staged objectives:

• Year 1: foundational work – building the code, setting up the experiment, developing the pipeline
• Year 2: main science phase – running simulations, collecting data, analysis
• Year 3: consolidation – advanced analysis, publication, dissemination, code or data release

You want reviewers to feel: “If we fund this, they will actually finish it.”

3. Treat software and data products as first-class outputs

If you are developing software, don’t hide it under the label “support tasks.”

Explain:

• How the code will be documented and maintained
• What license you will use
• How others will access and use it
• How it will reduce duplication of effort in the UK community

Reviewers increasingly care about reusable tools, not just one‑off scripts that die with the grant.

4. Show that you understand the wider UK and international context

Place your project in the context of:

• Current and upcoming missions (Solar Orbiter, JUICE, BepiColombo, Mars missions, etc.)
• Ground‑based facilities or data archives you will use
• Relevant UKRI / STFC priorities (ask your research office for the latest strategy docs)

You’re not writing a mission proposal, but reviewers want to see that your work connects to something bigger than your own CV.

5. Budget like a grown-up scientist, not a wishful thinker

Even though the scheme is “small awards,” panel members still care about realistic budgeting.

• Cost your staff time honestly. Do not pretend a full‑time postdoc is part‑time.
• If you need HPC resources, quantify them.
• For experimental work, give realistic figures for consumables and equipment.
• Avoid the “round number” budget that screams guesswork.

Your budget is a silent narrative about whether you know what it takes to do the work.

6. Get at least one review from outside your subfield

Ask a colleague who does not work in your tiny niche to read your case for support and summary. If they trip over jargon or can’t explain your project back to you in plain language, reviewers might have the same problem.

The goal is clarity without dumbing down. You’re writing for smart people who may not know your acronyms.

7. Use the contacts — they exist for a reason

ukri.org actually lists contact emails for a purpose. If you’re unsure whether your project fits this call or the related astronomy scheme, ask:

• STFC contacts: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
• Space science context: [email protected]
• Technical portal issues: [email protected]

A short, focused query early on can prevent you from spending weeks on a proposal that would be better placed elsewhere.

A Realistic Application Timeline

The deadline is 10 March 2026 at 16:00 UK time. UKRI deadlines are not aspirational. Miss it and you are done.

Here is a sensible backwards plan:

• September–October 2025

  • Confirm with your research office that your organisation and role are eligible.
  • Sketch a one‑page concept: objectives, methods, team, rough budget.
  • Email STFC contacts if you’re unsure about fit or whether you should apply here or to the astronomy observation and theory call.

• November–December 2025

  • Draft the full scientific case: aims, background, methodology, work plan, risk management.
  • Identify collaborators and confirm their roles.
  • Start pulling together track records, CV elements, and any required institutional statements.

• Early January 2026

  • Produce a full draft including lay summary, technical summary, and impact / community benefit.
  • Circulate to colleagues for comments.
  • Meet your research office to build the detailed budget in the UKRI funding service.

• Late January–February 2026

  • Revise based on feedback.
  • Finalise the work plan and timeline.
  • Complete all online sections in the UKRI funding service platform (these always take longer than you expect).

• By 3 March 2026

  • Aim to have a near-final version a full week before the deadline.
  • Let your research office do their internal checks. Many institutions have earlier internal cut‑offs.
  • Fix any compliance issues they flag (page limits, formatting, mandatory sections).

• By 7–8 March 2026

  • Submit the application in the online system.
  • Do not wait for 15:58 on deadline day. Portals freeze, networks fail, and you do not want that story.

Required Materials and How to Prepare Them Well

The exact sections will be defined in the UKRI Funding Service, but you can expect to need:

• Case for Support
  This is the core narrative. Explain the scientific problem, why it matters, what is known, and what your project will change. Include clear objectives, methodology, and a work plan with milestones.

• Lay / Public Summary
  This goes beyond a jargon scrub. Explain your project in a way that a scientifically literate member of the public can grasp. Testing it on a non‑specialist friend helps.

• Technical Summary
  A short, more detailed paragraph intended for experts but not necessarily your exact subfield. Make sure it flags the solar system angle clearly.

• Pathways to Impact / Community Benefit (or whatever the current UKRI version is called)
  Describe how your results, tools, or data will benefit other researchers, mission teams, industry, or the public. Be specific about data releases, code repositories, or planned outreach.

• Budget and Justification
  Itemise staff, equipment, travel, consumables, and any overheads according to your institution’s rules. Justify each item briefly and clearly.

• CVs / Track Records
  Highlight publications, mission roles, software releases, laboratory expertise, or prior grants that directly support your ability to deliver this project.

• Institutional Statements or Letters (if required by the scheme)
  These may state that you’ll have access to relevant facilities, labs, or computing resources. Coordinate with your department early so they’re not writing these the day before submission.

Treat each of these as part of a coherent story rather than a form‑filling exercise. Reviewers read them in combination.

What Makes an Application Stand Out to Reviewers

While the formal criteria will appear on the call page, UKRI / STFC panels consistently look for a few core things.

Clear and compelling science

You’re competing against people who also have strong ideas. To rise above the noise, your proposal should:

• Address a sharp, non‑trivial scientific question
• Show how your work will change understanding, not just tidy up a detail
• Explain the novelty: is it a new technique, a new dataset, a new combination of existing tools, or a new application?

Feasibility and realism

Reviewers want to fund ideas that will actually happen.

• The methods must be appropriate and technically plausible.
• The team should clearly have (or be able to acquire) the skills needed.
• The work plan should fit within 3 years and the requested budget.

Being honest about risks and mitigation strategies helps here. Pretending there are no risks in experimental or numerical work is not credible.

National and international relevance

Panels think about the UK community as a whole. Strong proposals:

• Connect to national strengths and existing investments (labs, missions, data centres).
• Show potential to strengthen the UK’s profile in solar system science.
• Offer outputs (data, tools, expertise) that others can build on.

Training and development

Especially if your proposal includes staff:

• Outline how postdocs or students will gain skills, not just do repetitive tasks.
• Show that early‑career researchers will be visible authors / contributors.

Panels like projects that grow capacity, not just pad one CV.

Common Mistakes to Avoid (and How to Fix Them)

1. Vague relevance to solar system science

Mistake: Writing a mostly generic astrophysics proposal with a line like “this may also apply to planets.”

Fix: Build the solar system link into the core objectives. If the link can be chopped out without changing the project, it’s not central enough.

2. Over-ambitious scope

Mistake: Proposing to solve three unrelated grand challenges in three years with half a postdoc.

Fix: Choose a focused problem and do it very well. You can mention future extensions but keep the funded work tight and deliverable.

3. Underestimating software or experimental effort

Mistake: Allocating a handful of weeks for tasks that, in reality, take months (like building a pipeline from scratch or setting up a new experiment).

Fix: Talk to people who’ve done it before and calibrate your estimates. Adjust the work plan accordingly, or reduce the number of goals.

4. Confusing or acronym-heavy writing

Mistake: Paragraphs stuffed with mission names, acronyms, and subfield jargon that only three people on Earth truly understand.

Fix: Aim for clarity over cleverness. Define acronyms, explain techniques briefly, and remember that not every panel member is in your micro‑specialism.

5. Sloppy presentation and last-minute assembly

Mistake: Typos, missing references, inconsistent figures, or a budget that doesn’t quite match the text.

Fix: Finish a full draft at least two weeks before the internal deadline. Use that time to tidy, proofread, and align the narrative with the budget.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a fixed maximum amount I can request?
The call is described as a “small awards” scheme, which usually implies modest budgets relative to major grants, but the exact cap will be on the official page. Design your budget from the work you want to do rather than shooting for a random ceiling. Your research office can advise what’s typical.

Can I apply if my work is mainly astronomy, not solar system?
This call is specifically for solar and planetary work. If your proposal is about galaxies, stars, or exoplanets without a strong solar system component, you should look at the related astronomy observation and theory opportunity mentioned on the call page.

Do I need to be a permanent staff member to apply?
Not necessarily, but your institution must support the application and confirm that it can host the grant for the full project duration. Early‑career researchers on fellowships or fixed‑term contracts should discuss this with their head of department and research office early.

Can international collaborators be involved?
Yes, typically you can involve non‑UK partners, but the grant itself is awarded to a UK research organisation, and UKRI rules on overseas costs apply. Check the specific call guidance and discuss any substantial international costs with your research office.

What if my project mixes solar system work with broader astrophysics?
That’s fine, as long as the solar system component is central and substantial. Be explicit about which objectives fall under solar / planetary science and why this scheme is the right home for them.

Can I submit more than one proposal to this scheme?
Usually, UKRI limits applicants to one application as PI to a given call, but the precise rule will be in the guidance. If you are considering multiple related ideas, pick the strongest and fold the others into a coherent three‑year plan.

When would the project actually start?
The call specifies that funding covers research activity starting from 1 October 2027. Your exact start date within that window will be agreed if you are funded, but you should plan your work package timeline relative to that.

Where can I get help with the application platform itself?
For technical issues with the UKRI Funding Service (logins, form glitches, etc.), email [email protected]. For questions about scientific fit or interpretation of the call, contact the named STFC staff rather than the generic support address.

How to Apply and What to Do Next

If this sounds like the right call for your solar system research, here is a simple, concrete next step list:

1. Read the official call in full
   Go straight to the opportunity page and read every section carefully. Pay attention to eligibility, funding rules, assessment criteria, and any “must include” sections:
   Official page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/astronomy-solar-and-planetary-small-awards-2026/

2. Talk to your research office early
   Let them know you plan to apply to the 2026 Astronomy Solar and Planetary Small Awards call. Ask:

   • Are we STFC-eligible as an organisation?
   • What are our internal deadlines before 10 March 2026?
   • Who can help with budget preparation and portal submission?

3. Draft a one‑page project concept
   Summarise your idea, methods, team, and why this specific call fits. Use that page to:

   • Get quick feedback from colleagues
   • Confirm fit with STFC contacts if you are unsure

4. Build a realistic work plan and budget
   Sketch the three‑year project structure and the resources you need. Check that each cost item has a clear role in achieving your objectives.

5. Write, review, refine
   Start writing the main sections months before the deadline. Get at least two serious readers: one in your subfield, one outside it. Revise ruthlessly for clarity and focus.

When you are ready to move from thinking to doing, head straight here:

Get Started

Ready to apply or want the full official details straight from the source?
Visit the official UKRI opportunity page for templates, rules, and the application link:

Astronomy solar and planetary small awards 2026
https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/astronomy-solar-and-planetary-small-awards-2026/

That page is where you’ll find the final word on eligibility, assessment criteria, and the application process. Use this guide to shape a strong, strategic proposal — and then let the science speak for itself.