DOC: RED Flight Example

[LUCKIN13]

Pull request type

• Code changes (bugfix, features)
• Code maintenance (refactoring, formatting, tests)
• ReadMe, Docs and GitHub updates

Checklist

• Docs have been reviewed and added / updated
• Lint (black rocketpy/ tests/) has passed locally
• All tests (pytest tests -m slow --runslow) have passed locally
• CHANGELOG.md has been updated (if relevant)

Additional information

This branch still needs some data reviews since the simulation file was developed in an older version of RocketPy. However, reviews can already be made, since the example should only suffer minor changes, if needed.
Changelog and Index for examples will be updated in other flight example, to prevent conflicts.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 76.09%. Comparing base (5856353) to head (aca9478).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #733      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    76.08%   76.09%   +0.01%     
===========================================
  Files           95       95              
  Lines        10997    10995       -2     
===========================================
  Hits          8367     8367              
+ Misses        2630     2628       -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests

[Gui-FernandesBR]

Once again, naming the folder after the team name is risky, since this may not be the last rocket we use as an example from this team.

The apogee should be quite near 3000m, since the rocket has an airbrake model. Are you sure the air brakes have worked during this simulation? 8.6% of accuracy is too much, I was expecting something below 2% for this model (of course I could be wrong about this.

I personally recommend you to not mention the "last simulated apogee before launch", instead just mention the simulation we have obtained right now.

Plus, we need to add this new rocket to the flight examples comparison plot.

[Gui-FernandesBR]

@LUCKIN13 before merging this PR, I believe we should add it to the CHANGELOG file.
#734 is similar.

[LUCKIN13]

The apogee should be quite near 3000m, since the rocket has an airbrake model. Are you sure the air brakes have worked during this simulation? 8.6% of accuracy is too much, I was expecting something below 2% for this model (of course I could be wrong about this.

The airbrakes did work, since the apogee was 3300 meters and is now 3180m. I have an idea for an improvement to that value, based on using the actuation curve of the controller designed by the team.

[Gui-FernandesBR]

@LUCKIN13 it looks like you have duplicated the example notebook.

[LUCKIN13]

@Gui-FernandesBR thanks for calling out my distraction! I think it's finally ready!

[Gui-FernandesBR]

LGTM