[marsovo]

More context on the external tank: https://archive.is/2017.03.30-030831/https://www.nasa.gov/mi...

> The common soda can, a marvel of mass production, is 94% soda and 6% can by mass. Compare that to the external tank for the Space Shuttle at 96% propellant and thus, 4% structure. The external tank, big enough inside to hold a barn dance, contains cryogenic fluids at 20 degrees above absolute zero (0 Kelvin), pressurized to 60 pounds per square inch, (for a tank this size, such pressure represents a huge amount of stored energy) and can withstand 3gs while pumping out propellant at 1.5 metric tons per second. The level of engineering knowledge behind such a device in our time is every bit as amazing and cutting-edge as the construction of the pyramids was for their time.

[MarkusWandel]

The (early) Atlas ICBM was even less substantial than a soda can. There used to be one parked on the front lawn of our local science museum. It had to be kept inflated with pressurized air. When the time came to retire it and they let the air out...

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/museum-shrugs-as-a...

In service, of course, the necessary pressure would have been maintained by propellant boil-off.

[chipsa]

In service, it was pressured with nitrogen, just like it was while not in service. RP-1 is not an especially volatile fuel.