Grants talk:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015

Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity Geraldshields11 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL

The combination of these 2 sentences made me laugh out loud.

"preserve the good articles for future Earth-descended generations and, possibly, alien civilizations"

"The project would consist sending copies of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, of several languages, into outer space"

By sending a single SD card into outer space you guarantee the loss of that SD card. Sending stuff to outer space is (obviously) not a good way to preserve something, but it is a very effective way to get rid of something. If you want to preserve something you should make many copies in many different formats on many different media and store them in as many places as possible, all over the world, preferably places like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The Yucca Mountain repository is intended to store nuclear waste (and keep it safe), but there are also plans to get rid of nuclear waste... by launching it into space! Read NASA's "Nuclear Waste Disposal in Space" for more info. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Additionally, even if launching an SD card in to space were an effective way to preserve GA's for future earth-descended generations, since the Islamic State is specifically mentioned, I'd support putting this project on hold until ISIS is a direct threat to WMF's servers, although I understand that may raise satellite costs :P Kevin (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @The Quixotic Potato: and @Kevin Gorman:, Thank you for the feed back on the 2015 version of the written proposal. I do appreciate the feedback. It is good that members of the community can provide feedback in a safe space. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @The Quixotic Potato:, I understand the issues of file format and the difficulty of retrieval. The first mission is to a finite low Earth orbit and is different than the 1978 Nuclear Waste Disposal in Space document because the satellite is a micro satellite and not a 5900 kilogram (or by the Shuttle is 4408 kg) object. Also, on page 31 of the PDF User:The Quixotic Potato referenced, in Figure 5 . Space options, NASA seems to support that a high Earth orbit or Lunar orbit can be rescued. By rescue, the document means, if it is mistakenly set to an inconvenient orbit, it can be placed into a more convenient orbit away from Earth.

Based on page 31, if, in 1978, NASA can rescue a 5900 kg satellite then, in 2015, NASA should be able to rescue and to redirect a 2.2 kg satellite back to Earth for more convenient pickup and return.

Perhaps you could review the Future Friendship 3 section for the very long long term project. It parallels the w:en:Long Now space mission, which will be launched and will return to Planet Earth in 50,000 years. So, it is already being planned but not focusing on Wikimedia. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Kevin Gorman:, Launching one satellite with one SD card is not a very long term storage strategy. It is only intended for two-human generations. I wanted to use commercially available off the shelf equipment. As I discuss in the project proposal, this is similar to Sputnik. Sputnik just beeped. That is all it did and it crashed after a couple of orbits. But, what that one satellite did was spawn the greatest adventure to orbit and the Moon. Without Sputnik the United States would not have decided it was important to go into outer space and then to the Moon. Someone has to take the first small step of mankind to lead others and demonstrate the idea. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @The Quixotic Potato: and @Kevin Gorman:, Perhaps we can work together on a more viable very long long term storage plan. To respond to your hypothetical, if ISIS is winning, then resources may be diverted to the war effort so waiting may not be an option. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @The Quixotic Potato:, Perhaps we can work on contacting the various countries radioactive waste disposal sites to see if they would be kind enough to store some storage/memory in one of their vaults? Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @The Quixotic Potato:, The storage vaults are not a sexy way to store copies but I am will to do the wikignome work on it. Geraldshields11 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, my 2014 Grants:IdeaLab/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity has the various organizations I have contacted for the w:en:Lunar Mission One Project that I support because that is a very long term storage proposal. However, retrieval of that project is, of course, more difficult. Geraldshields11 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2015

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2015 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2015 begins on 20 October 2015, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Marti (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Mjohnson (WMF): Thank you for the notice. since the notice, I have been soliciting feedback and suggestions. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Community notifications

Hey there geraldshields11 and GlamChem. Thanks for your (galactic) submission! So, I'm not sure why this occurred, but there is normally a community notifications section when you create a grant proposal or transfer it from IdeaLab; applicants are asked to engage the communities they are hoping to impact with their proposal, and ask them to give it a read, offer feedback, endorse it if they support it, ask questions, etc. I've just added this section into the proposal. When you're able, please begin to notify communities about your proposal. Since one of the motivations for this project revolves around preventing censorship and preservation, there are a number of Wikipedia projects affected by government measures you could consider contacting on their village pumps / community noticeboards. Let me know if I can help you get started with notifications. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @I JethroBT (WMF): Thank you for the feedback. I am working on it and will revise the project shortly. I was busy at the Wikiconfrence USA 2015. Please see the category :Wikiconfrence USA 2015 on Wiki Commons for the festivities. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @I JethroBT (WMF):, I just modified the proposal based on community feedback. I need help with the community notifications because I am not sure what that means. Do you mean posting on Signpost or the Space Project wiki group? Please help. Thank you. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Geraldshields11: Hey Gerald. I have a few ideas about where you can consider alerting folks to your proposal. Generally, I think places like en:Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) and WikiProject Spaceflight could work well. Posting to Signpost would also be a great idea. Suggestions can be made here. I'd get started on that one sooner rather than later though, just because it's only released once a week. But I'd like you to think about what communities you are hoping to help on Wikimedia Projects, and to find places where you can ask them for feedback. This project's goals seem to fit many Wikimedia projects, particularly those projects that have already been subject to censorship, so I'm also wondering if there are any, like non-English projects, you wanted to contact. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I took your advice and posted it to other project pages. I added the process to the main space of the project. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, if I notified too many. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

About financial and reliability component of the mission

Although i like the idea to make a safe data "backup" in outer space, i am afraid the proposal have a several deficiencies
1) The Geraldshields11 user is clearly being manipulated by funding-hungry satellite maker. The incremental cost of adding SD slot to satellite and launching it is under $200. To my opinion, we should consider university-made Cubesat and launch for free.
2) Friendship 1 mode (launching to LEO) is purely public stunt. The hard copy of wikipedia will fall from orbit in the time frame of weeks to few years, making it useless as backup. Launching such obviously meaningless mission will do more harm to wikipedia public image.
3) Friendship 2 mode has some merit. But we must consider a survivability and recoverability of the memory
3a) Survivability - the memory must be truly bistatic (not a flash memory) to survive indefinitely in space. It mean MRAM or FRAM module. The penalty is large volume - need around 100cm3/GByte. For larger data volumes, miniaturized HDD may be the best secure carrier.
3b) Recoverability - must have some beacon (inflatable reflective ball)? to find it easily
Trurle (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Trurle, I understand the limitations on this first mission (Friendship 1) but it is the first like Sputnik. No one has done this before. I understand the limitations of Earth orbiting sats but this will jar people into thinking about doing one step for a person and one giant leap for mankind.

The satellite launcher and maker is w:en:AMSAT and their Fox-1C launches. I have an email saying they have an empty SD card slot and what amount of financial support I can provide.

This 512 GB SD card is a commercially available over the counter technology that cost about $800 (please see link in proposal). I contacted San Disk HQ but they never got back to me about donation one SD card of this huge memory size. The other amount is for the fuel. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Things I have done to find other launchers

• I wrote letters to non-USA governments who have launched micro-sats in the past.

I.m.h.o., very bad idea. Wikipedia must not be associated with any government support, otherwise that government will try to influence the contents Trurle's talk

No, I would give them the SD card so I would have control of the articles. Geraldshields11 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, governments are common carriers into outer space. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• I sought donations of time and efforts.
• I forwarded to the email from the AMSAT about Fox-1C launches to potential supporters for donations.

I really wish there was a better way and I am open to other suggestions. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State

I don't think mentioning Islamic State is helpful for the project. Wikipedia is inclusive. Members of the Islamic State are also among the users and contributors to the encyclopedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ipigott, Thank you for the suggestion. I changed the proposal to censors and deletionists instead of Islamic State. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a step in the right direction.--Ipigott (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Ipigott: - members of ISIS are absolutely not appropriate contributors to any Wikimedia project, and United States law (where WMF is based) would most likely require an office global ban were any to be unveiled. Kevin (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Members" was probably the wrong term to use. I simply meant people living there. I still maintain the encyclopedia is inclusive. I would be interested to hear of any precedents for excluding people within a given territory or living under a particular regime?--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Copied from my Wikipedia talkpage

To Geraldschields11: Thanks for keeping me informed of your plans. Cyberspace could be taking on a completely new connotation! I think your idea has potential for media coverage of Wikipedia but it is of course quite unrealistic as a method of preservation. Maybe you should specifically try to attract interest from wide-circulation newspapers and magazines and from internationally popular web media. Even if the project is not supported, media coverage from now on could be useful for encouraging new interest from around the globe. I think you should also look into costing. Maybe money could be saved by a less ambitious approach. Some of the funding could be specifically earmarked for raising interest in science and technology on Wikipedia. I strongly object to your mentioning Islamic State in the proposal. Wikipedia is inclusive. If we start mentioning Islamic State here, we could go on to mention any number of other organizations as threats in other proposals. I suggest you remove it from the proposal before it comes to the attention of the media.--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear user:Ipigott, I hear that you strongly object to me mentioning w:en:Islamic State or "any number of other organizations as threats in other proposals" as WP is inclusive.

This (Friendship 1) is the first step similar to Sputnik and Sputnik just beeped and crashed after several orbits. But, what did Sputnik do; it inspired humans on this big blue marble to look up and stretch themselves; Friendship 1 is but the first step to a more realistic method of preservation. If no one takes one small step then there will not be a giant leap for mankind. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Freeze the Version of WikiMedia

Good luck with this.

Think of the process for a moment. To send WP into space, you have to freeze it (not literally, I know space is rather cold): take a copy at a given instant, incorporating all edits up to that instant and missing all edits after that instant. Then you send that snapshot of WP into space.

I seriously predict a massive growth of edit-warring as opponents try to get their POV into space, in articles on any number of issues or on matters even remotely connected to those issues. You can't protect them all. And I predict a massive growth of vandalism as thousands of AHs try to get their silly attempt at a joke into space. And I predict that when this thing arrives in a few million years' time, ETs will be rolling on whatever they use for a floor, laughing their little green heads off at what those people on that little planet thought was important way back then. Stanning (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Stanning Thank you for the feed back. If a copy were sent, I was hoping for the Good Articles collected by WikiOffline. They created a profanity free version of the GAs. This was done awhile back. This way, I save memory space and have a curated copy of Wikipedia/Wiki Commons. It is limited; I understand but the hypothetical Earth-descended readers will not laugh.

This is just a first step like Sputnik. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Voyager

The comparison with Voyager is obvious, but a further inquiry into the topic makes for some interesting parallels:

1. Wikipedia is not censored, but the Voyager Golden Record only featured a heavily edited outline of the naked human form.
2. Wikipedia is freely licensed, but the Voyager Golden Record was not; much of the common heritage of mankind we sent to space was actually copyrighted. For this reason, Wikipedia's article on w:Contents of the Voyager Golden Record lacks most of the contents. A striking irony is that if we send that article to space, it will be a rather sorry representation of the proprietary Voyager - but probably a better message of what constitutes common human knowledge.

Finnusertop (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear user:Finnusertop Thank you for the feedback. My current initial proposal is less ambitious than w:en:Voyager. Friendship 1 is just to low Earth orbit; just to get WP/WikiCommons there. No one has done it before. I am now focusing on the STEM coolness and publicity for WP. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Technical aspects for Friendship 2

I still strongly object against Friendship 1 mode. I.m.h.o., such mission with lifetime measured in weeks or months look too silly to be useful for promotion. We will be chastised by spacecraft community. And the rest of people will follow. On the other side, Friendship 1 hardware is simple. SD card as you previosly mentioned is ok. No hardware design needed. Survival is automatic if within re-entry capsule of hosting spacecraft or impossible if host spacecraft is not designed for re-entry.

To make a Friendship 2, we need to piggy-back to some mission with at least 25 years lifetime (i.e. ~800km altitude or above) Approximate Friendship 2 mission profile:

• 1) Launch
• 2) Survive in orbit for 25 years
• 3) Survive a destructive re-entry of host spacecraft.
• 4) Survive undamaged a landing in water or soft soil (75% survival probability)

Approximate hardware for Friendship 2:

• 1) 1.8-inch HDD (320 GBytes)
• 2) Flotation device and water-activated gas generator (from lifejacket or car safety bag). May be not necessary if weight kept below 0.3kg (in expense of radiation shielding)
• 3) Radiation shielding&heat soak (machined aluminium)
• 4) Ablative (2x1.6mm PCBs are good enough)
• 5) Ferro-lanthanum beads (from lighers) and and/or boric acid between ablative PCBs to increase visibility and distinctiveness of re-entry
• 6) Suspension&fixture (will burn up during re-entry)

I estimate the size is below 100x100x30mm (Cubesat PC-104 slot (double thickness)). Mass <0.7kg. Terminal velocity ~14m/s. This mean survival without parachute with decent probability. Re-entry casualty probability is ~3ppm, well below NASA-recommended 100ppm. Possible hosts are 2U Cubesats or larger. I will try to contact some satellite makers after compiling a list in few days.--Trurle (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Trurle @Wp:en:User:Trurle: Wow. Thank you for the design suggestions for the future. If I had the financial support to build and launch a microsatellite from a non-governmental organization, it would be great and I would do it. But, I do not have the resources and I am not asking for a project grant to do that ... Yet.

I have already contacted the w:en:AMSAT group. They are a NGO that builds and launches the Fox-1C. I believe the lifetime of that microsatilite is two human generations. Retrieval is an issue for this time capsule.

I just use the term "like Sputnik" to demonstrate that the initial event may be a small step and just beep but "like Sputnik" could inspire others to improve on the idea and "shoot for the Moon" with a giant leap of a better project.

This proposal is just to piggyback on w:en:AMSAT's sat in one SD card slot. I am being realistic to just get Wikipedia into outer space for the first time with Friendship 1.

In the future on Friendship 2 or later, I would like to do a similar mission as the w:en:Long Now Foundation mission that would last for multiple human generations and have similar design as what you propose. A unsigned comment on the 2014 proposal talk page said "download a 3-page Word© document (English version) on KEO'S technical feasibility, an extract from a paper, presented by Aerospatiale at the 48th International Astronautical Congress, Turin, October 1997". I found a link to the KEO satlite idea is at http://www.keo.org/uk/uk/technik.html.

I am just trying to be realistic on what is possible in the here and now.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Geraldshields11. I looked to KEO design and can say it was quite conventional for the 1997. By the standards of 2015, KEO is grossly over-engineered. Basically, to survive longer, modern satellites miniaturize payload. In numbers, if you reduce payload volume 1000 times, the debris shield volume reduces 550 times and radiation shield 100 times. Also, thermal load during re-entry reduces 10 times, and terminal velocity - 3.2 times. For very small payloads (hundreds of grams) stopping power of radiation shield alone is enough to eliminate a specialized debris shield (so i have no debris shield in my design).

As about building a satellite, i also prefer to work low-budget. Actually, production cost of pico-sat can be as low as 100 USD (see en:CanSat). Passive design can be even cheaper. So no grant is needed. The only obstacle is how to get ride to orbit. To my experience (i was working in JAXA before), contacting through sales offices of launch providers or space agencies is counter-productive. Best way is the direct contact with chief engineer of satellite. If he/she will be interested and his satellite have a sufficient mass margin at the end of design cycle, it is easy to add one more module. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.16.242.35 (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Trurle @Wp:en:User:Trurle: This is great. This would be an opportunity to pursue. Thank you for your interest. I just wikignomed/edited the CANSAT article. Do you have a list of chief engineers we can contact? Geraldshields11 (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

www.space.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/nlab/member_e.html project and his leader Nobutada Sako is a good example of the matching piggy-back mission. The contact is sako-ATMARK-space.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp, but please do not contact yet. I will handle.--Trurle (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Trurle, You lead and I will follow your lead. I am very very grateful for all of your assistance. Thank you. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A few thoughts

Here two thoughts:

• To get the content survives in the space, the solution will have to thing about something more robust than a SD card. This will probably have to be burned in some kind of metal disk.
  • CD disk in practice. 1000 years lifetime. Limited by radiation-induced out-gassing of polycarbonate base. But it is not truly bistatic, so i still prefer HDD or MRAM to get error-free readout within a lifetime. Lifetime of HDD will be limited by radiation-induced crystalline-amorphous transition.--Trurle (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Assuming their is a kind of readership in the space, somewhere. I doubt this is the smartest thing to do to tell them that we exist.
• For the rest this sounds cool and with Kiwix, we already have the technology to gather the content. Kelson (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Kelson: For now, the readership is only future Earth-descended generations; that is why I want to curate the list of articles. So, the future generations do not read "u so >>>" in the text from vandals. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea, but..

...why send only the Good Articles? I think that all articles should be sent into space if it is technologically feasible. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Jakec: Memory space is at a premium on a spacecraft. However, if Lunar Mission One is a go then memory space is good to go. But, retrieval is more difficult. That idea is similar to Friendship 3 or Friendship 4. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The memory types comparison

I am adding an overview on long-term space storage media. Any suggestions?

Memory types	Memory stability	Storage density	Volume to store 50 GB (cm3)	Comments
Sub-surface laser engraving 1200dpi	metastable	0.1 petabits/m3	4000	Read by grinding layers (destructive)
160GB, 1.8-inch HDD	bistable	60 petabits/m3	7	Readout electronics unsurvivable, need a special lab to read in this case
DVD-10 master stamp	metastable	6 petabits/m3	70	Procurement is difficult
MRAM solid-state	bistable	0.13 petabits/m3	3100	If readout electronics fails, cannot recover data
FLASH SD 64GByte	metastable	850 petabits/m3	0.5	Self-erases in few decades. Thermal and radiation stress accelerate self-erasing.

--Trurle (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Trurle: That is a wonderful run down of the options for Friendship 2. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Trurle: From the chart, 160GB, 1.8-inch HDD, looks the best because if the electronic reader fails on crash, then there is a chance to still read. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

With feedback received, I am concentrating on the 1.8-inch HDD module design. Will write now tentative specs on "Grants" tab.

Dear @Trurle: Thank you. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background)	Score 1=weak alignment 10=strong alignment
(A) Impact potential Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities? Does it have potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	2.4
(B) Innovation and learning Does it take an Innovative approach to solving a key problem? Is the potential impact greater than the risks? Can we measure success?	3.0
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in 6 months? How realistic/efficient is the budget? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	4.6
(D) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support? Does it support diversity?	4.6
Comments from the committee: Aside from incidental advertising for the movement, there is no correlation to the strategic priorities or plan to achieve impact. The proposed follow-on projects will be technically and financially prohibitive, and should not be regarded as realistic. This fits best with the strategic priority of stabilizing infrastructure in that the project proposes space travel as a way to promote awareness about WMF and ensure future preservation of Wikipedia content. That being said, I think there is not much chance of success for preservation purposes and the potential impact for promoting WMF could be a negative one; I fear that this would appear as a waste of money for a vanity project and the IEG program could lose credibility among contributors. There are no plans for sustaining the project. The project does not solve any significant problem for the movement, and is unlikely to produce meaningful innovation or learning of use to the movement as a whole. Innovative idea, but not apt for solving any problem for the Wikimedia movement, especially since Wikimedia/Wikipedia is not really lacking in popularity. The project is very innovative, imaginative, and ambitious and it seems the applicant sees the project as flawed, but a necessary first step towards developing a better plan for sending WMF projects into space. However, I do not think the approach is targeting a key problem and I am struggling to find the connection between how the plan will result in an increase in participation. Measures of success are provided but are not specific. The project timeline indicates that it will not be completed within six months, and the budget seems unrealistic for developing spaceflight-qualified hardware. It's difficult to say how realistic the budget and timelines are as many things see to be hypotheticals (although obviously researched based on what information could be found on the subject). It's not clear to me what the $4,200 amount in the budget to "fund the financial support of the piggy back ride on a satellite" is for (unless a safety net in case the money required cannot be raised through crowdfunding). I am not sure how much relevant experience the applicant has; additionally, given the project's focus on media and partnerships with organizations such as NASA, I feel like any project of this nature should be led by WMF staff. There is minimal community engagement and support, and no diversity aspect to speak of. The applicant has notified a lot of different communities and very much seems open to collaboration. I appreciate the passion of the applicant and would encourage them to resubmit this project in a future round after more refining. In particular, it would be nice to see this proposal have more of focus on increasing participation through targeted community engagement (space enthusiasts, sci fi fans, both Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians) to research the logistics, develop a crowd-funding plan, and be more involved with the technical side of the offline solution.

Dear @Mjohnson (WMF): Thank you for the feedback and I understand the points raised. I will continue my efforts to improve the various Wikimedia projects. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all

Dear @Mjohnson (WMF):, @The Quixotic Potato:, @Kevin Gorman:, GlamChem, @I JethroBT (WMF):, Ipigott, @Wp:en:User:Trurle:, Stanning, Finnusertop, @Kelson:, @Jakec: Thank you for your support and suggestions during the grant process. I do appreciate all of the feedback. I look forward to working with all of you in another Wikimedia project or in a variation of a Wiki preservation project. My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Round 2 2015 decision

This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!

Comments regarding this decision:
This project is very innovative, imaginative, ambitious has a necessary first step towards developing a better plan for sending WMF projects into space. However, we ultimately struggled to find the connection between how the plan will result in an increase in participation for the movement at this time. We welcome the passion and enthusiasm approach to promote Wikimedia projects, and would be interested to see this plan developed through targeted community engagement (space enthusiasts, sci-fi fans, both Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians) to research the logistics, develop a crowd-funding plan, and be more involved with the technical side of the offline solution.

Next steps:

1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
4. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.

What next ?

So i see the commission come to conclusion project is not going to make a major impact (something i also agree), although technically no major obstacles do exist. So, any ideas for something bolder ? Not necessarily related to space launch.--Trurle (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear user:Turle, Sorry for not responding for so long. I was focusing on getting partners with space launch capabilities so I could piggy back on their ride. It now seems the German chapter is likely able to piggy back on a launch. I am so excited and happy at this. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia to the Moon

Hello geraldshields11,

Just popping in to make sure you are tracking this, which I imagine will be of interest to you: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_to_the_Moon

Cheers!

Marti