forward, rightly enough, to space travel. These men also seem to take it for granted that their own branch of service, viz. the Navy or the Air Force, will be the one to take over the military duties of patrolling the spaceways, or whatever might be required.
I have yet to read a story in your magazine, in which any particular branch of service now in existence is mentioned in connection with space patrolling, which gives the Air Force credit. All others of this 1 type either had the Navy, of all things, sailing through the waterways of space, or the job was assigned to an independently created unit specializing solely in space travel, which of course is more logical. It would seem to me, if it were a question of handing this future job over to the Navy or Air Force, the latter would be the most logical choice. The Navy traditionally steers its course on a two-dimensional plane, while the Air Force by its very nature must constantly operate in a three-dimensional plane. Of course, it is not necessary that any future space travel, if any, be assigned to any existing service. It would be more logical and a lot simpler to create a special, independent rocket force.
It seems to me, from the stories I have read recently, that either you or your writers are prejudiced in favor of the Navy. Even the rocket forces of alien peoples many light-years away have signed away their rocket forces to the local navies. I will admit the vast possibilities that I may be wrong in my assumptions, and I only hope I am. I did not start reading your magazine until the first of this summer of 1949.
Whether you wish to publish this in your letters to the editor column is of no import to me. What I would appreciate is a letter stating your policy on this subject, if you have made one.— Robert L. Smith, 200 E. 22, Austin, Texas.
Dear Campbell:
The September issue’s article "Cybernetics," by E. L. Locke tempts me to draw a few speculative conclusions in another direction from those he deemed mentionable. Perhaps the reason I've never thought of it before was that I hadn't quite suspected the possible relativity.
The single paragraph which hit the spark, however, occurred on P. 89 when Locke said that—as shown by Weiner—the number of cells go up as the cube of the brain dimension while the connectors go up only as the square. I'd heard before that the remote parts of the brain are affected first when there's a mental monkey-wrench loose in the works. Of course, Locke was considering primarily the functioning of feedback loops—but I was reading Astounding SCIENCE FICTION, wherein any mention of the brain is likely to be on the extreme view of developed
