Cool! especially full size. But you know, I gotta ask.. after the first launch, I'm assuming they stay in orbit?

Fantastic, as usual! :-) Corrie

This is inspiring stuff. I like what you have done and your designs are based on established theory and/or research. I was really looking forward to see people go to Mars in my lifetime. It's still not out of the question, but I don't think I'll see anything on the scale you have shown. My guess is that it might be reality in about 100 years. I've wondered about launching vehicles from the martian surface using magnetic accelerators. It seems like the thinner atmosphere, and availability of crater rims (or even volcanoes) to elevate the launch track gradually and minimize construction and material cost might be a better option for smaller payloads.

geirla, Correct -- after launch the major components of the system, the Crew Vehicle & Mission Support Transporter, do not return to a surface landing on Mars – each Callisto Mission is but one incremental step in a cycle of missions that will last hundreds of years as the terraforming program moves through different phases towards building a human breathable atmosphere on Mars. Returning crews (along with returned payload) are brought down via Nuclear SSTO flights and the Crew Vehicle remains in orbit to be refurbished and prepared for another mission – along with the with the returned Mission Support Transporter.

William, I love all your work but something keeps bugging me and that is the infrastructure that you already have in place on Mars. I would love to see something like this but when we now don't even have a vehicle to get a new crew to the ISS because of this idiot in the Whitehouse where the heck are we going to get the money to fund any of what you are purposing? I love your work as it inspires me but it at the same time depresses me because I know the reality of what we actually have. Best wishes my friend from a fellow future traveler, David

wonderful scenes

David, I agree -- we are presently fearfully far from what I am proposing -- and perhaps the fault is mine, in keeping the time frame indeterminate and undefined. My intent is that this all takes place at some point more than a hundred years down the road -- a determined group settles Mars and following that by perhaps another 150 plus years -- begins the process of a substantial terraforming program. Even here, I am probably being optimistic ... one reason I have backed off from addressing time frame at all. Yes, I am with you: when I contemplate the prospects from where we are right now -- the outlook appears dismal -- and not just in terms of our lost space program -- but in terms of our culture. Unless the rational thinking American's among us can manage to clear the fog of lies and deceptions generated by the Left -- we are doomed to re-create the horrific conditions of Soviet Russia, Communist China, and North Korea right here. Only those thoroughly duped by the Left do not understand that it is a police state that they are courting. We are standing on the edge of the abyss -- and I fear for the outcome -- and so, yes, the grand vision I have of hard working determined people, people who do not hate success, people who embrace hard labor and dedication to a long term effort -- that vision looks very, very, far off, from here. Obama & the Left have acted to foment major discord, steering groups within the population towards a collision course -- and the fact they have done so via deceptive means is sadly lost on those who are duped, or who willingly go along with the slogans. Unfortunately they have succeeded in fomenting the idea that economic status is rigid (and not a matter of change over time, i.e. -- many who are now wealthy started out poor -- people change economic status over the course of their lives -- so any "economic class" based argument is truly meaningless. Students start out poor and climb in income status -- people suffer a change of fortunes and lose jobs, or jobs shift in requirements -- and people descend in income. No one is "fixed" at any income level by anything other than their own choices.) This, along with the deception that "wealth is a static fixed thing, and not a flexible measure, are among the mistaken notions running rampant in our culture right now. And the vultures -- those who would profit by a collapse, or by the institution of a vast bureaucratic state (such as labor unions like SEIU & AFL-CIO -- who would seek to assume the same position and status that criminal organizations did in the Soviet Union) are taking advantage of the confusion and fog of deception. These groups are laboring along with the CPUSA, the Anarchists, and the liberal Left -- to hasten the collapse and demise of a working, free, capitalist America. What the dupes at the OWS demonstrations don't understand is that it is they themselves who will be the first to be rounded up and executed if and when they succeed and bring about their vision -- and by the time they realize their error it will be too late -- for true patriots such as you and I will be long gone, and there will be no one left to speak out for their rights or to save them.

A further Expansion of my thoughts expressed above … I was not entirely pleased to leave it at that, and I have received some comment via the site mail, so, the following two entries: Hollywood, Mainstream Media, and the Left have promulgated the notion that corporations achieve success via some undefined “trickery,” instead of the truth, which is that personal choice and liberty is what underlies success and financial gain. Consumers vote with their dollars – you determine what corporations succeed, what products sell, and what technologies become available – the result is a consequence of human free will at every level. IF you are viewing this post on a home computer, or on a laptop, or on some other mobile computing device – you are right now using two innovations brought to you by the effort and creative vision of individuals working in coordinated fashion to bring their ideas into existence through the vehicle of corporations – I refer of course to the personal computer and the internet, neither of which would exist in present form without corporations and without free market capitalism. You cannot elevate the condition of men by destroying the prospect of accomplishment – and you cannot improve the conditions of existence by vilifying those who produce and bring to fruition the vision of the creative. Not all ideas are equal, and not all efforts are of equal value – it is good that the bad fail and the good succeed. Certainly a society which embraces the failure of personal choice and liberty, and sets some arbitrary limit on success, would never succeed at (let alone be able to mount) an endeavor such as colonizing and terraforming Mars. In fact, in every case, in absolutely every single case, in every country on earth where men have been deluded to follow the mad men who formulate such deceptions, the consequence of their actions has left behind, as monument to their folly, vast graveyards where millions lie buried …

Scales of Measure … How big is big? How far is far? How many decades stood between the establishment of the first European colonies in America and the moment when men stepped onto the Lunar surface placing the first human footprints on the moon? How many man hours of labor went into the effort in building the infrastructure required for such endeavor -- when measured from that beginning? It is incredibly unlikely that any of the first colonists to establish residence on the shores of America envisioned anything like the Apollo program, the ISS, or the Space Shuttle – they had shorter term goals in mind, goals relevant to their context and time. I do think that men who set their sight on establishing a permanent home on Mars would have a slightly different context to their vision – for them establishing a human breathable atmosphere and human friendly environment would be part and parcel of their long term vision – and I believe it would be in their interest to establish a culture that embraces such struggle. Terraforming Mars would be an effort larger in scope and involve an effort of longer sustained duration than anything one can find to reference in human history to this point – but do I believe humans are capable of embracing such effort? Yes I do.

Looks excellent!

VERY COOL

The answer to Bambam is that the American space program is over. The baton has been passed on. Perhaps, if what is now called America reforms into a new system and nation, it will once again have a sense of the personal, national joy that the desire to know can bring. It seems that the only hope is that the human race, not nations, reach again for the stars. On a side note, I am interested by this very American view of "the Left" which seems to bunch all its spectrums into very non left-wing concepts like North Korea and Soviet Russia. If you are calling those things left wing then I would respectfully suggest you go to an encyclopaedia and broaden your concept. :) To me, 'right-wing' covers a very diverse group, some fanatical and mythology centred, some clear thinking and innovative. To lump the 'left' into a sort of cold war inspired bogeyman is (at its most innocent) naive.

In preface to this response, for benefit of others who might read this, and for those who might be uninitiated in formal logic, or the formal terminology of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism – the Bold-Text Capitalized terms I use in my response to Turin indicate (his) logical fallacies – you can find definitions of logical fallacies via a web-search of the individual terms. The Bold-Text Capitalized Italic terms indicate formal terminology used in Objectivist analysis – these are links, clicking on them will take you to the page on Ayn Rand Lexicon.com where they are defined. Turin_Returns, I’ve set your comment aside (for a little over a year), because of its disingenuous nature – evident by virtue of its intentionally convoluted form and construction. I’ll just set the ternary Red Herring Argumentum ad Hominem via Appeal to Emotion contained in your first two sentences aside. The answer to Bambam is that the American space program is over. The baton has been passed on. The Straw Man presented by the Ambiguous Proposition: “Perhaps, if what is now called America …” is slightly more amusing in what it reveals about your psychological makeup. Let’s just dismiss your Straw Man though, shall we? Point of fact – there is indeed a nation known as America. There is no question regarding the fact of its existence nor is there a question regarding its name. It’s not actually a question in your mind, now is it? Of Course not. If you had an argument you would have presented it, I note you have not – so, you took opportunity to express disdain and muddy the waters. The amusing fact in regards to your psychological makeup thus revealed is that you possess an Anti-Conceptual Mentality. Only a true Second Hander entirely consumed with Tribalism would think to make a Red Herring Appeal to Emotion by dismissing an opponent’s nation of origin. An Anti-Conceptual Mentality is not the product of ignorance (nor is it caused by lack of intelligence): it is self-made, i.e., self-arrested. To refresh, let’s go through your third sentence once again: Perhaps, if what is now called America reforms into a new system and nation, it will once again have a sense of the personal, national joy that the desire to know can bring. Let’s dismiss the anthropomorphism, shall we? A nation is not a person – it is an aggregate of individual men. Nation’s do not possess a consciousness, beyond the individual consciousness of individual men. Nation’s, as such, have no “personal” sense of anything. The smuggled concept you introduce, i.e. “a collective,” is a delusion. Human beings are individuals. You cannot think with another man’s mind nor eat with his mouth, nor work with his hands. A man’s spirit … is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego. There is no supra-entity whose consciousness transcends the sum of every individual consciousness in a society – the concept doesn’t mean anything. You introduce collectivism as a smuggled concept. A Smuggled Concept, in logic, is an Informal Fallacy also known as Begging the Question. "Petitio Principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate. Here I will address your smuggled concept: It is not required that a nation adopt collectivism – which means becoming Socialist – in order for individuals to experience joy (or any other emotion). Your assertion is patently absurd. Your suggestion that men can only “know” things as units of a collective is equally absurd, and patently untrue. In order to value anything, be it joy, a slice of cheesecake, a perfected skill, or acquired knowledge – the requirement is the individual, a living entity, not a disembodied aggregation. To refresh, let’s go through your third sentence once again, striking out the absurdities and irrationalities, the smuggled concepts, and the unsupported conclusions: Perhaps, if what is now called America reforms into a new system and nation, it will once again have a sense of the personal, national joy that the desire to know can bring. Semantic content = 0. Your fourth sentence reintroduces the concept of Collectivism. I note that you have done so twice – and here your true intent is revealed. It’s funny that you cannot be honest and state this blatantly up-front. Of course, considering the nature of collectivism, the fact that it relies on slave labor, requiring men to surrender the freedom of both the work of their minds and of their hands (no private property under collectivist systems) to the dictates of the State, that it must enforce this theft with often brutal force – it’s rather understandable that you feel the need to hide your intent. Men wouldn’t be very likely to embrace their new role as slaves if you told them up-front what you are doing, now would they? Do you want to dispute that men are in fact regulated to the role of slaves under collectivism? I’ll prove my point. Collectivism demands possession of all the works of men. Collectivism takes possession (by force) of all property. Collectivism takes possession (by force) of all intellectual creation and all products of individual creativity. If a man is not free to own the product of his labor, to dispose of it as he sees fit, to set what value he will accept in exchange for his work – then is he not a slave? Of course he is – Collectivism is nothing other than a system of thought designed to institute and justify slavery. Your fourth sentence: “It seems that the only hope is that the human race, not nations, reach again for the stars.” Well, no. It doesn’t seem that way. So long as there is one example of an opposed viewpoint your proposed Universal is invalid. Let’s just excise that little dribble of unsupported nonsense from your fourth sentence: “It seems that the only hope is that the human race, not nations, reach again for the stars.” You propose “hope” as an attribute of a collective entity – it is not, and I have addressed the fact that emotions are a property of an individual, singular man, not an aggregate. Perhaps what you wish to ascribe is the creativity and inventiveness of men as “hope” – this being the only rational meaning I can observe in your sentence, I will now address that. The “human race” as the collective entity in-whole that you propose does not exist. The concept is meaningless. The human race is not responsible for any particular advancement in any arena – not in the creative arts nor in the sciences, nor in matters of invention. Individual men create and invent, not “nations,” and certainly not the entire “human race.” Unlike you, I shall support my argument, supplying the reason why your statement is nonsense. Observe: Every invention, every innovation, from the wheel to the jet engine to the rocket, from the abacus to the computer, has been the creation, the realization of the vision of – individual men. In regard to this: “Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won. – from “The Soul of an Individualist,” For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand To refresh, items eliminated as spurious from your fourth sentence: “It seems that the only hope is that the human race, not nations, reach again for the stars.” At this juncture the topic of interstellar travel is not relevant to my future history – my work describes interplanetary spacecraft, establishing a permanent settlement on Mars (which is the fourth planet from the sun in our solar system) and the long term consequence of terraforming Mars, via the resource importation method Nation’s will not conquer the solar system – groups of individual men will. Industrialists, inventors, investors, men driven to produce the means to a better life, for themselves, for their own benefit, and not others – men such as these will conquer the solar system. Such men will seek out and will be joined in this endeavor by other men of skill knowledge and talent, men who see value in applying their intellectual labor, and the work of their hands to such a rational goal. A quote from “The Soul of an Individualist,” For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand: “No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered … His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life … He held his truth above all things and against all men.” The industrialists, inventors, investors, will be accompanied by other men possessed of integrity of knowledge skill and talent, men who see value in applying their intellectual labor and the work of their hands, to such a rational goal – these men will partake of the endeavor. This is how progress happens, via the process of uncoerced choice among men who deal with one another as equals, exchanging value for value. The reason Collectivist State’s will not engage in such endeavor: No system of slave labor could compel men to labor to the degree of precision required to engineer the systems to accomplish such a task. Men under compulsion (under threat of force) will only labor to the degree necessary to produce the price of the whip that keeps them enslaved. In a broader category are the National governments – these also will not conquer the solar system: National governments are possessed of a tightly constrained, narrow, range of the moment vision in regards to such matters. National governments tend to be too utilitarian to engage in such vast undertakings – as evidence I cite the space programs of both the United States and the former Soviet Union. Individuals will conquer the solar system (and perhaps, in a respectively remote future time, will reach for the stars). Nation’s as such will not initiate such things – perhaps once the water is tested they might attempt to leverage some benefit, riding on the backs of the men who went there first. Your fourth sentence, with fallacies, irrationalities, and invalid conclusions removed, each having been addressed and dismissed: “It seems that the only hope is that the human race, not nations, reach again for the stars.” Valid semantic content contained in your fourth sentence = 0. With your final two sentences you propose that you are “interested” and dismissive at the same time. Cognitive dissonance much? Let’s dismiss your conflicting/contradictory assertion: On a side note, I am interested by this very American view of "the Left" which seems to bunch all its spectrums into very non left-wing concepts like North Korea and Soviet Russia. If you are calling those things left wing then I would respectfully suggest you go to an encyclopaedia and broaden your concept. :) Because this is not a kindergarten, (there are no children present) because you are obviously promoting collectivism and are hostile to the values of capitalism and freedom, the offering of your smiley face is disingenuous at best, and because your emotions are inconsequential to a discussion of reason, let’s eliminate the unnecessary “smiley face” as it serves no purpose: On a side note, I am interested by this very American view of "the Left" which seems to bunch all its spectrums into very non left-wing concepts like North Korea and Soviet Russia. If you are calling those things left wing then I would respectfully suggest you go to an encyclopaedia and broaden your concept. :) Point of fact, the values under discussion (which you are commenting on) are the central topic, and these are the philosophical core of my future history, and are not aside from the topic – so let’s dismiss the misdirection: On a side note, I am interested by this very American view of "the Left" which seems to bunch all its spectrums into very non left-wing concepts like North Korea and Soviet Russia. If you are calling those things left wing then I would respectfully suggest you go to an encyclopaedia and broaden your concept. :) Point of fact, I am American, this post is part of my future history – stating the obvious in a dismissive manner is not a logical argument for anything – so let’s dismiss that triviality: On a side note, I am interested by this very American view of "the Left" which seems to bunch all its spectrums into very non left-wing concepts like North Korea and Soviet Russia. If you are calling those things left wing then I would respectfully suggest you go to an encyclopaedia and broaden your concept. :) Now let’s deal with your Straw Man statement: “this view of the Left which seems to bunch all its spectrums into very non left-wing concepts …” There is no distortion involved in the discussion you refer to, between Bambam131 and I. Your assertion is vacuous. Today’s Left evades any direct knowledge of what it is they advocate, and many are simply blissfully ignorant of the consequences. There are direct consequences of establishing a Socialist State – atrocities, of terror, secret police and concentration camps. Collectivism means total State ownership of all products of mans work, creative, intellectual, and physical, total State ownership of all property in every form. The only way to establish this is to seize all property by means of force. Because men, by their nature, require the means to exercise their freedom and individual choice brutal systems of on-going suppression become essential and necessary. This is why we see, as a direct consequence of collectivism a global Body Count: 149,469,610. This is the number of citizens killed or starved to death by their own Communist governments since 1918. The number does not include war dead. People’s Republic of China Body Count: 73,237,000 1949-Present (57+ years and counting) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) Body Count: 58,627,000 1922-1991 (69 years) The body count only covers the years 1923-1987 (Rummel 1996). Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic Body Count: 3,284,000 1918-1922 (4 years) This body count does not include the 6,210,000 killed in the civil war (Rummel 1996). Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Body Count: 3,163,000 1948-Present (58+ years and counting) 1,663,000 is attributed between 1948-1987 excluding the Korean War (Rummel 1994). 2,500,000 is the mid-estimate for those who starved to death between 1995-1998 (U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea 2006). Cambodia Body Count: 2,627,000 1975-1987 (12 years) The body count estimate is complete (Rummel 1994). The offical country name was Democratic Kampuchea during Pol Pot’s reign and then known as People’s Republic of Kampuchea afterwards. Democratic Republic of Afghanistan Body Count: 1,750,000 1978-1992 (14 years) The body count estimate is complete (Courtois 1999). Vietnam Body Count: 1,670,000 1975-Present (30+ years and counting) The body count covers the years 1945-1987 for Vietnam/North Vietnam and excludes 1,062,000 from the Vietnam War (Rummel 1994). People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Body Count: 1,343,610 1974-1991 (17 years) The body count includes 10,000 political assasinations during 1977-1978, 1,000 children killed in 1977, 110 massacred in an Orthodox church in 1975, 80,000 during the civil war between 1978-1980, 250,000 that died in 1982 through Transit Camps, and 2,500 killed in a bombing raid (Courtois 1999). Another 1,000,000 is added for the famine during 1984-1985 (BBC News 2000). Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Body Count: 1,072,000 1945-1992 (47 years) The body count only covers the years 1945-1992 excluding 100,000 from the Tito Partisans between 1941-1944 (Rummel 1994). Chinese Soviet Republic Body Count: 700,000 1931-1934 (3 years) The body count only includes the Jiangxi and Fujian provinces (Chang 2005). Although Mozambique has 700,000 to its name, the Chinese Soviet Republic produced more bodies in a shorter time period and the estimate is low. People’s Republic of Mozambique Body Count: 700,000 1975-1990 (15 years) 100,000 civilians murdered between 1986 and mid-1988 (Young 1991) and 600,000 starved to death between 1975-1985 (Courtois 1999). Socialist Republic of Romania Body Count: 435,000 1947-1989 (42 years) The body count only covers the years 1947-1987 (Rummel 1997). People’s Republic of Bulgaria Body Count: 222,000 1946-1990 (44 years) The body count only covers the years 1948-1987 (Rummel 1997). People’s Republic of Angola Body Count: 125,000 1975-1992 (17 years) The body count only covers the years 1975-1987 (Rummel 1997). Mongolian People’s Republic Body Count: 100,000 1924-1992 (68 years) The body count only covers the years 1924-1987 (Rummel 1997). People’s Socialist Republic of Albania Body Count: 100,000 1946-1991 (45 years) The body count only covers the years 1944-1987 (Rummel 1997). Republic of Cuba Body Count: 73,000 1961-Present (45+ years and counting) The body count only covers the years 1959-1987 (Rummel 1997). German Democratic Republic Body Count: 70,000 1949-1990 (41 years) The body count only covers the years 1948-1987 (Rummel 1997). Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia Body Count: 65,000 1948-1990 (42 years) The body count only covers the years 1948-1968 (Rummel 1997). Lao People’s Democratic Republic Body Count: 56,000 1975-Present (31+ years and counting) The body count only covers the years 1975-1987 excluding 47,000 war dead (Rummel 1997). Hungarian People’s Republic Body Count: 27,000 1949-1989 (40 years) The body count only covers the years 1948-1987 (Rummel 1997). People’s Republic of Poland Body Count: 22,000 1948-1989 (41 years) The body count only covers the years 1948-1987 (Rummel 1997). Excludes 1,585,000 from ethnic cleansing between 1945-1950 (Rummel 1994). People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen Body Count: 1,000 1969-1990 (21 years) The body count only covers the years 1969-1987 (Rummel 1997). The majority of those who are loosely identified by the term “the Left” are afraid to let themselves discover that what they advocate is statism. They do not want to accept the full meaning of their goal; they want to keep all the advantages and effects of capitalism, while destroying the cause, and they want to establish statism without its necessary effects. They do not want to know or to admit that they are the champions of dictatorship, murder, and slavery. So, as you can see, there is no distortion – the system of Collectivism promoted by the Left has direct and dire consequence. The state of affairs in the former Soviet Union and the present day state of affairs in North Korea are valid representations of those consequences. This assessment is a matter of fact, and not as you mischaracterize it, an “introduction non left-wing concepts.” Point of fact – I am identifying the outcome, the consequence of Left wing ideology. My conclusion is supported by the evidence. It should be obvious to you by now that your suggestion that I should “broaden my concept” is erroneous. To refresh, now that all elements of your fifth and sixth sentences have been fully addressed, your Straw Man disposed of, and all mischaracterizations, irrelevancies, and Red Herrings eliminated: On a side note, I am interested by this very American view of "the Left" which seems to bunch all its spectrums into very non left-wing concepts like North Korea and Soviet Russia. If you are calling those things left wing then I would respectfully suggest you go to an encyclopaedia and broaden your concept. :) Semantic content = 0. This leaves your final two sentences: Your seventh sentence is a broad generalization, and relies on a generic description and certainly is not definitive, many would not fit into it, thus its meaningless nature is exposed. To me, 'right-wing' covers a very diverse group, some fanatical and mythology centred, some clear thinking and innovative. To lump the 'left' into a sort of cold war inspired bogeyman is (at its most innocent) naive. Your eighth sentence has been addressed in the material cited above (in reference to your fifth and sixth sentences) at this juncture you are merely repeating yourself, and the conclusion you reach has been shown to be invalid. So, removing the meaningless broad generalization and the conclusion already shown to be invalid: To me, 'right-wing' covers a very diverse group, some fanatical and mythology centred, some clear thinking and innovative. To lump the 'left' into a sort of cold war inspired bogeyman is (at its most innocent) naive. Semantic content = 0. Let’s now examine your entire comment, all distortions, irrelevancies, logical fallacies, and trivialities struck out: The answer to Bambam is that the American space program is over. The baton has been passed on. Perhaps, if what is now called America reforms into a new system and nation, it will once again have a sense of the personal, national joy that the desire to know can bring. “It seems that the only hope is that the human race, not nations, reach again for the stars.” On a side note, I am interested by this very American view of "the Left" which seems to bunch all its spectrums into very non left-wing concepts like North Korea and Soviet Russia. If you are calling those things left wing then I would respectfully suggest you go to an encyclopaedia and broaden your concept. :) To me, 'right-wing' covers a very diverse group, some fanatical and mythology centred, some clear thinking and innovative. To lump the 'left' into a sort of cold war inspired bogeyman is (at its most innocent) naive. Semantic content = 0. Just as I initially thought, you’ve said nothing at all. Citations Ayn Rand, “‘Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Ayn Rand, “Credibility and Polarization,” The Ayn Rand Letter Ayn Rand, “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal