1/16/26:
Update:
In this post, at the third paragraph or so, there was a mention of Leonard Peikoff, who wrote a provocatively titled book. The title is The Ominous Parallels.
I'm sure that I've read the book, and may have owned it. I don't think I have it now, though. I've largely forgotten about the book, except the names, obviously.
There's a lot of mention about a rise of fascism in this country. It has certainly gotten a lot of mention, but not this book. If you want to discuss fascism, and what it actually is, you should at least have a philosophical basis for that discussion. This book could provide some information on that topic.
A study of history could be in order as well. In my opinion, too many people flap their gums without knowing of what they speak.
12/21/10:
Ringer is the guy who wrote "Winning Through Intimidation". I mentioned this guy in an earlier post, but I can't remember which one offhand. Or how to find it in my own blog. But it is in here somewhere.
But my own disorganization aside, I recall writing that his book made me aware of Ayn Rand. Eventually, I got around to reading "Atlas Shrugged", and another one of her books, "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal". I can't say that I became an
Objectivist. But I can say that her works convinced me, even though I did not need all that much convincing. When Ronald Reagan said that the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, it could have come out of my own mouth.
I read a book by
Nathaniel Branden, who is or was an Objectivist. And in an earlier version of this blog, back in 2004, I reviewed a book by
Leonard Peikoff, who was closely allied with Ayn Rand. So, I am familiar with that philosophy. Not necessarily a fully fledged member of it. This is not to say that I am against it in any way. I tend not to be a joiner, nor a Kool Aid drinker or any flavor. I tend toward an independence that runs almost to an extreme.
It would be easy to dismiss me as a kook. Perhaps that is what many people think. If so, then so be it. I can't be who I am by pleasing other people, and in the process, sacrificing myself for their approval.
I favor Capitalism, but I am not going to drink that Kool Aid either. So, when I suggest that we use the external tank from the shuttle derived launcher, I feel it is in the spirit of Capitalism, but not necessary in the letter of it, down to the last dotted "i" and crossed "t". To me, there is no need for that kind of purity of principle. For I am a practical man. Some have said "too practical", but it is what it is.
I mention these names so as to inform people of the direction from which I am coming. With a few caveats sprinkled in. For what it's worth, the last thing I would suggest is to keep a boondoggle or create a new one. If I thought this is in effect of what I was proposing with these external tanks, I would drop the idea in a heartbeat.
Update:
One of the commenters yesterday asked why put up one of these big stations?
Here are 4 reasons:
1) To use it to generate artificial gravity. Tethers could be used, but a solid structure could be better.
2) To use the huge volume for storage and habitation. Machines could be installed as well to enhance capabilities.
3) Cheaper to reconfigure what is already in orbit as opposed to building it and launching it from Earth
4) Want to use it for deep space missions. Take this station to the asteroids and mine platinum for profit.
Here are few more:
Testing techniques for in situ resource extraction using the ET's for that purpose.
Testing techniques for tethers while constructing the station.
Testing skills for managing artificial gravity systems.
