LOL, I guess I can tell where you stand on the "Fact and Value" debate.
Dr. Leonard Peikoff states: "...The universe is everything. 'Outside the universe' stands for 'that which is where everything isn't.' There is no such place. There isn't even nothing 'out there'; there is no out there.'"
Did it occur to Peikoff that the term "universe" is used in two different ways ("everything that exists" and "everything that you can geometrically travel to or see") and that these two senses aren't necessarily congruent? When we say, "the universe is expanding," we are clearly referring to the latter sense.
"If the universe is everything and it is expanding, what is it expanding in to?"
This is difficult to visualize, but an expanding universe doesn't necessarily imply that there is any external space. It's a geometrical question you're asking, and there are geometrical solutions that expand into themselves without postulating any boundaries or extra dimensions (for example, a de Sitter space).
Based on Dr. Peikoff's statement the very concept of the big bang is a contradiction - it cannot have happened. So is the big bang a bust, is the Big Bang theory incompatible with Objectivism or is Dr. Peikoff not an Objectivist?
Peikoff is an Objectivist whose failure to adhere properly to Objectivism has led him astray on the topic of physics. I don't think that makes him a bad person. And now you know where I stand on "Fact and Value". :-)