BUG: fix standard atmosphere

[Gui-FernandesBR]

Pull request type

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

• Code base additions (bugfix, features)

Pull request checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements, depending on the type of PR:

• Code base maintenance (refactoring, formatting, renaming):

  • Docs have been reviewed and added / updated if needed
  • Lint (black rocketpy) has passed locally and any fixes were made
  • All tests (pytest --runslow) have passed locally

What is the current behavior?

@MateusStano recently caught an inconsistency with the geopotential <=> geometric altitudes in the Environment Class.
I hereby confirm that is currently a BUG and the code has not been working properly so far.

What is the new behavior?

I verified every equation in the Standard Atmosphere model, comparing each of them with the ISO 2533 available online.
All the inconsistencies were removed.
A few comments were provided to warn users of model limitations.

Does this introduce a breaking change?

• Yes (it modifies a basic calculation regarding environment pressure profile and temperature in ISA. As the difference between geopotential and geometric altitudes are usually lower and 1%, the impact will be very small. It doesn't even affects the current acceptance and unit tests).

Other information

• It is not hard to find the ISO-2533 online, just google it including "pdf". However, it seems that it was update in 2021 but only a paid version can be found so far: https://www.iso.org/standard/7472.html
• For future reference: something that really annoys me is that the code consider height as a synonym of altitude. Technically they are different things, and I would agree with a quick name refactoring in the future. As a rule of thumb, whenever we wrote "height", just replace to "altitude" and we will be more accurate.

[phmbressan]

Good that weird code block was corrected. Just to be sure I checked the results with the module Ambience and they are good.

[MateusStano]

• For future reference: something that really annoys me is that the code consider height as a synonym of altitude. Technically they are different things, and I would agree with a quick name refactoring in the future. As a rule of thumb, whenever we wrote "height", just replace to "altitude" and we will be more accurate.

Interesting. We can do this right before or right after (or during I guess...) the snake case changes

[Gui-FernandesBR]

Good that weird code block was corrected. Just to be sure I checked the results with the module Ambience and they are good.

Great idea, @phmbressan ! I never used this Ambience module, could you provide me a link to its project?
I found this one, is the same that you used? https://pypi.org/project/ambiance/

[Gui-FernandesBR]

For future reference: something that really annoys me is that the code consider height as a synonym of altitude. Technically they are different things, and I would agree with a quick name refactoring in the future. As a rule of thumb, whenever we wrote "height", just replace to "altitude" and we will be more accurate.
Interesting. We can do this right before or right after (or during I guess...) the snake case changes

Agreed! Therefore I'm mentioning #361 here too

[phmbressan]

Good that weird code block was corrected. Just to be sure I checked the results with the module Ambience and they are good.

Great idea, @phmbressan ! I never used this Ambience module, could you provide me a link to its project?
I found this one, is the same that you used? https://pypi.org/project/ambiance/

Yes, that one. I made a typo in the module name it is Ambiance.

[Gui-FernandesBR]

Good that weird code block was corrected. Just to be sure I checked the results with the module Ambience and they are good.

Great idea, @phmbressan ! I never used this Ambience module, could you provide me a link to its project?
I found this one, is the same that you used? https://pypi.org/project/ambiance/

Yes, that one. I made a typo in the module name it is Ambiance.

Great, many thank for slid reviewing it.

Based on the two approved reviews, I'm proceeding with the merge operation