If you substitute Roman wagons for chariots— and assume some tolerances — the rail gauges are based on wheel ruts. Yes, there were lots of gauges—but the one that won out just happened to match up perfectly with the wheel ruts?
No one is saying that the boosters are the same size as the rail gauge. Just the size of the train & train tunnels. As you mention, it’s not a standard size.
But the link and the intuition are the same. Our modern technology standards are based on anachronistic technologies. That was the point of the article.
> If you substitute Roman wagons for chariots— and assume some tolerances — the rail gauges are based on wheel ruts. Yes, there were lots of gauges—but the one that won out just happened to match up perfectly with the wheel ruts?
No, they're not. The wheel ruts should be about 7' apart. The rail gauge is 4'8½", which is far less than that.
But as noted, if you trace the history of 4'8½", it comes from a 4'8" gauge (no longer perfect), and that comes from the existing infrastructure that was used to haul coal out of the mines, which came about in the 18th century, has no relevance to any wheel ruts whatsoever.
(Also, I should point out, there's also a tunnel-free route from Salt Lake City to Florida; just head north and over to Laramie instead of in the Moffat Tunnel. No clue what the actual route used was.)
Thanks for the details. If those coal mine gauges came from the dynamics of draft horses, would you agree with this example showing the idea that “anachronistic technology impacts modern standards?”
I'm using the Conestoga wagon as my size of the wagon because it's dimensions I can easily find (see https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digita... for source). It's virtually impossible to find any hard details on wagon sizes online because search for roman wagon sizes and the stupid story pops up instead.
> If those coal mine gauges came from the dynamics of draft horses
I think coal mine haulage was dominated by hand, not by people (one of the reasons they used track technology--tracks make it easier to handle the heavier loads).
> would you agree with this example showing the idea that “anachronistic technology impacts modern standards?”
Not really. As noted, the track gauge wars occurred well into the development of steam technology (so the horse dimensions played no role), and it turns out for a variety of engineering reasons that the sweet spot for railroad track gauge is around 5'. So track gauges aren't based on anachronistic technology.
And also, as I pointed out, the track gauge didn't play a role in determining the size of loading gauge or tunnel width. And no one has actually ever provided any evidence that the people who designed the booster wanted a larger rocket, but couldn't build it because they were limited by the loading gauges. So it's not even clear that any concerns about the ability to transport by rail played a role in determining the size of the booster.
The only thing you have linking anything here to the size of the booster is this statement:
> The railroad from the factory runs through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than a railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
And every single fact in that statement is false: there is a path that doesn't run through a tunnel, so the SRBs don't have to fit through "that" tunnel; and tunnels are not "slightly wider" than railroad track, and railroad track is not "about as wide as two horses' behinds."
No one is saying that the boosters are the same size as the rail gauge. Just the size of the train & train tunnels. As you mention, it’s not a standard size.
But the link and the intuition are the same. Our modern technology standards are based on anachronistic technologies. That was the point of the article.