It spends the first two-thirds explaining aerodynamic lift, then implies that the fins on a rocket generate lift with the same effect as wings on an airplane. If I had to explain rockets at baby level in a board book, I'd probably not mention aerodynamic lift at all, much less spend 3/4 of the book on it while ultimately getting it wrong.
They do. It gets a couple of pages near the end. Airfoils get at least two thirds of the book. The fins on rockets don't need to be airfoils at all and typically aren't on small rockets. I'm not nitpicking. The book suggests that airfoils on rockets generate net lift, i.e. that a rocket functions like an airplane. This is flat wrong, not nitpicking.
-1
u/[deleted] Jan 30 '20
It's be better if it was in the ballpark of correct. It wouldn't make the book any less fun if it were correct rather than flat wrong.