Quote properly instead of using snippets and answering them without meaning or you'll get this back and waste your own time.
The only one wasting time here is you.
You continually provide the same refuted garbage and baseless claims and do whatever you can to avoid the key issues which shows your claims to be pure garbage.
Let me make this abundantly clear.
Is that clear enough?
Yes, quite clear. You either have no idea what you are talking about or you are blatantly lying to everyone.
Notice how that has a lower pressure inside, not a higher pressure?
Like I said before (and provided a simple experiment you can do yourself), tanks like that are much more capable of withstanding high pressure inside as that requires literally tearing it apart as opposed to a lower pressure inside which just requires buckling the container.
So this either shows that you have no idea what you are talking about as you do not understand the importance of the directionality of that force and thus this example doesn't show anything to support you, or you are lying because you know that doesn't support you yet you still present it as if it does.
Like I said, go get a simple plastic drinking bottle. Then suck all the air out and you easily crush the bottle. But try breathing into it all you want and you will find that you can't break the bottle at all.
Another simple example is a sheet of paper. Try holding something with a sheet of paper, and seeing just how much weight is required to break it, making sure the paper is fixed at the top and the weight is at the bottom.
Then try doing it again with the weight at the top and the paper fixed and the bottom. You will find it takes a lot less weight to have the weight at the top fall than it does to have the paper be torn apart.
The argument is about extreme low pressure against atmospheric pressure, whether inside pressure being 15 psi against extreme low pressure or external pressure being 15 psi against extreme internal low pressure/or the tank I put up.
No, the actual point is that those 2 scenarios are very different. The directionality of the force matters. You equating the 2 shows you don't understand or are lying.
The equivalent scenarios would be a tank at 2 bar in the atmosphere and a tank at 1 bar in a vacuum. In both cases there is a pressure differential of 1 bar.
Another set of equivalent scenarios would be a tank at 1 bar (kept at one bar by adding or removing gas as needed) in an atmosphere at 2 bar, vs a tank under vacuum in an atmosphere of 1 bar.
And you still don't understand that it isn't the same. The direction matters. That rail tank could withstand the pressure difference in the other direction easily, just as the ISS could.
The rail tank dictates otherwise...and that's reality.
In order for that to be true you would need to have that tank full of 1 atm of pressure and put it in a vacuum. Until you do that you cannot honestly say that it dictates otherwise. Again, you are relying upon your fantasy to try and reject reality.
Meanwhile, my simple experiment with a water bottle or sheet of paper shows otherwise, that the directionality matters, because an object under tension behaves differently to an object under compression.
Now again, why not address the key issue?
How does the gas leave the rocket in a vacuum, when you have declared that such motion is impossible?
Again, it needs to push against something, and the only thing available is the rocket, meaning the rocket would be pushed and work in a vacuum.
Until you actually address this, your claim will remain pure fantasy and the reality of rockets working in a vacuum will remain unchallenged.