PB666

But not to man-made impactors. A few were lost on the ground, some lost in atmosphere (coming in appears to be slight more dangerous than going out)

Rating 0.1 stars and 0 replies. Today in non-plutonian space science. The space station went on red-alert today when a piece of Russian satellite debris came within a mile and a half of the station. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/international-space-station-debris/30231057/ I was kind of bothered by this, I thought they would be able to determine with more certainty the orbital parameters of space debris. Philea lander apparently has two commications with rosetta in the last couple of days http://www.space.com/29969-rosetta-comet-lander-philae-signal.html Aside from its power problem rosettas orbit appears to be complicating communication. This one caught my eye earlier apparently researchers are farming 40 year old data about the van allen belts, and are making the claim no they are no belts but Zebra stripes of plasma http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150714131558.htm I wonder if anyone has calculated the amount of energy in these waves, it may be a useful source of electrical power in space, just draw out two electrodes far from a ship and see how much current it generates.

Going by your photo, since chlorine only has to transfer one electron it preferentially undergoes oxidation and you produce CL2 gas not Oxygen. To make the system work you have to purify the water work. In addition the high level of salt will shorten the length of life of your expensive electrodes.

Think about what is liquid and were it might come from. Water could be liquid transiently because in deep crevaces bound by rocks maintaining pressure. The other liquids are methane, nitrogen, oxygen, and even hydrogen. Look at those photos carefully, although the erosion is not like on earth, there are signs of wearing on many of the complex features, although the pattern could also be explain by volcanism, it exhibits features of running liquid. I work with water under vacuum, and you can have circumstances where it does not boil right off even at room temperature, if the flux is great enough then the cooling rapidly cools water to near freezing were further boiling is inhibit, it can run a while before freezing. If we imagine pluto's atmosphere not as our own, but an atmospheres that expands and contracts as geological energy is released or as it approaches the solar maximum (or both) then you could have a situation were an expansive atmosphere, slightly warmer than present and heat upwellings bring water that the flows over the surface before it has a chance to freeze solid. The water would be boiling, yes, but transient stability is all that is needed. Pluto is not a place for humans to go, I have serious doubts about life on pluto, the rate of evolution would be incredibly slow with long periods of complete dormancy. The fact that you have high rates of turnover to the frozen surface would indicate there is a reasonable chance that anything ends up spending most of its existence trapped in a solid. To top this off, were are the energy sources, very little chemosynthetic compounds as a result of heat, and so little sunlight you could not keep a well adapted house plant alive. Basically life would have the complex organics that arrive from accretion and once their gone it dies. I suspect most of these compounds ended up in the core of the planet and we have no chance of sampling there. - - - Updated - - - Think about a process that because of high levels of insulative fluff, the latent heat from decay accumulates and then its release as convection is triggered and then rapidly released. Then long periods (millions of years) of no activity and the process starts over again. The mountains may be much much older, I think they are talking about the majority of the surface, not the entire surface.

Of course, in discussion amongst the lads yesterday, we though it best to hide the spa, bath and massage retreat in the northwestern canyon since it was already booked until the plutonian periapsis. You can hardly call it a base, given the fact we don't allow our minions to know of its location (riff-raff and all that, chap), the landing site remains fairly understaffed and in roughly a cobbled ice landing pad. Its amazing how people can make a mountain out of a methane pile, next thing you know they will be wanting us to show them where their lander is on 67P, its not like we gave in permission to land there, that personally was my favorite site to tan and now it has screw holes punctured in it. The lay gives absolutely no thought how long it took to select and covertly turn the comet into a path that would steer it closer to the sun, and now its location is known by all. The Cometary Inc stock dropped 50% when that lander finally landed in that alcove, its all now tainted merchandise. We are not greedy per-say, but it takes decades to find secret sites to take your mistresses and now we have to worry about spying from the lessor lifeforms, if they had pictures of the spa, egads it would be hell to pay when the wives found out. Keep quite about the whole thing and NH may avoid suddenly finding a errant snowball in its path. Just keep repeating....There is no cabal...There is no cabal....

To gather the vector you want, essential you want to extend vertical velocity vector at kerbin sunrise. But kerbin is also traveling 170 m/s at its surface, if escape velocity is 3500 m/s then you need to launch 2.78 degrees before sunrise. If the kerbin day is 6 hours long, about 3 minutes before sunrise. The launch needs to be timed such that it is at the Hohmann transfer time for Duna. Since a kerbin year is 400 days long your perfect transfer will be off by +/- 0.3 degrees, in addition since KSP is equitorial you will always have an orbit that is planar with unless you manage to get a launch very close to when Duna orbit crosses the kerbin defined equitorial plane of the Kerbol system, and on that you need to know the pitch north (for a descending node) and south (for an ascending node) and also correct this for the spin of Kerbin. So here are the problems. Essentially you are paying for each moment trying to escape after you would have made your gravity turn, the cost is thrust - gravity(altitude). If beyond 45,000 meters your craft has really great acceleraton, say 5g then this is not a problem, you will not spend many moments pushing your weight up, but if it has low acceleration say 1.2 to 1.8 g, the reach orbit, no questions asked, you should choose LKO first. Second issue is if you plan your trip carefully you can make gravity assists off the mun or minmus, this will be hard to time if you make an escape orbit from kerbin The third issue you need to know is that to get and land at duna you essentially need low thrust high ISP engines for the transfer, and the place to fire them is at LKO periapsis, the lower the better. Since Duna is so far away and the change of separation angle between the two planets is so slow, you can fire your engines at this periapsis several times for a minute or so each pass to 'kick' the craft to a larger major axis (periapsis + 2 planet radius + apoapsis). So instead of using an inefficient engine that has and ISP of 370 you can use and engine(s) with an ISP of 800 or 4200. You could not use these engines in an escape trajectory from kerbin because their thrust is simply too small. The require circumstances were you can make long burns over time. If you decide to use ION drive engines, remember that Duna gets less light, and the retrograde burn may not point you ideally for sunlight, so make sure you have enough panels and anticipate your burn times appreciably in advance, or you might make a nice flyby on the way out of the kerbol system. Bottom line,your odds are better with an LKO transition, build a orbit stage that gets you between 80 and 100 km, circularlize. The next stage should be high ISP, there are posts that describe the delta theta suited for transfers to each planet. It is better if you match planes as close to duna as possible, since you will be travelling 1000s of meters per second slower. Anticipate the SOI with ion drives and begin slowing down, this means your transfer orbit is likely intercept Dunas SOI at a high altitude, and you will begin to retro relative to Duna several days away and adjust your speed downward so that you have a decent chance of making orbit, and essentially reverse the process at duna you performed at kerbin LKO.

The SSME has an ISP of 452.3 seconds, and the limit is shy of 500 so right now its 91% is ISP at sea level is 366. These values are far higher than any comparable LFOx engine in KSP. If you want to get a higher ISP you would have to add nuclear assist. The problem with the shuttle is not its engines, its the shuttle itself. For flights that don't require a 7 person crew, its a huge waste of payload weight. However it could be repurposed with a smaller crew and larger payload bay for carrying more stuff into space. Anyway the shuttle program is over, finished.

You can solve the problem by creating two new versions of each fuel tank, one with LF generate module and one with Ox generate module, you will have to give up a couple of units of electric power, but it will fill your tanks up on the pad. TO be honest you would have to increase the cost of the tank to reflect the fuel added. The other problem is that the module can do this multiple times making it a potential SSTO and destination cheat. So unless you decouple the device in the first stage it becomes a cheat. (I do this to breeze through early game when new game releases come out, it makes the drudge easier) However if you exceed the weight of the launch pad you may end up damaging it, of course you could just hit the activate button after you launch. I think all of these defeat the purpose of the game, they want you to struggle in the design of your craft to make them efficient so that you will reach space and orbit without need a Size2 tank and engine. For example the last revisions make hard game harder even for experienced players (working through the orbit phase right now, so the weight limit is definitely on my mind).

What about Creatine phosphate, what about NADPH? You could have a reserve of protein sulfides in an oxygen rich environment. You could conserve acidic in a basic or neutral environment (How mt make ATP) There's thousands of ways to make energy depending on what a cell might have and the environment is rich in. On a different world it could be deoxyGuanidine tri-arsenate. Once again you think inside the box, life on other world will not duplicate the energetics on this world, because there are nearly random choices to be made, it is not likely to drift in the same directions life on earth has. ATP on earth is intercellular energy, GTP is used for regulatory phosphorylation. It could be reversed, it could be UTP or TTP or ITP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Its not geologically young, the mountain peaks that you see (probably ice proper) are old, but the flat surfaces you see are all recent. The speaker apparently believes that the surface regenerates itself. This could occur for several reasons. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33543383 Pluto has a close approach to the sun, this causes the low melting point ices to melt and probably cause appreciable turbulation of the surrounding areas. Some of these gas may come down as rain causing significant erosion just like on earth, in fact I see evidence of erosion in the photos. ------- As of 8:30 PM CDT the NASA site is down. I think you guys overloaded it. Nice. There are other possibilities, for example during accretion of the solar system, the heaviest metals are drawn to the inner solar system and the gases are pushed out. However the kuiper belt objects maybe residue that was not captured by these gravitational forces, as a consequence there may be substantially more heavy metal residue and radioactive elements here. Even a low level of radioactive element in an essential snow covered world will be insulated from heat loss, the upwellings of liquids from the center of the planet may suffice episodically to turn over the surface. This is not uncommon and we observe this on earth, for example dissolved CO2 is heavier than water, and volcanic activity under lakes can cause the concentration of CO2 to build up to a critical point for a given pressure and temperature, any small perturbation (tempterature rise or increase of CO2 or simply a deep wave) can cause the CO2 to change state and it immediately pulls up the surrounding water, causing more CO2 to lose solubility and prompt critical circumstance, that eventually pulls most of the CO2 out of the lake (and unfortantely kills everything in the surrounding areas). The same could be happening on pluto, we could have liquid gases that suddenly upwell and volatile causing a rapid destabilization. I suspect that the heart shape feature is the such an event, a destabilized area that has been filled in with new precipitation.

There's once a vlad out their that will wrestle a bear in good taste he won't decapitate your horse in your bed. It'll be co-mounted with women who breast are bare but he'll deliver you Po-sushi and your just as dead He was once KGB, with this there's no doubt, but his biography makes John Gotti look like a scout. He frames his enemies and make descent disappear and of course, fail to bribe him, then hanged oddly not knowing where Seriously an ex-soviet bloc political leader, I don't think it was Kim Jung Ill or Amadinajad. The whole case rest under the authority of a virtual autocrat who controls the financial, justice, and treasury

Try not to constrain the argument with artificial barriers, and in this case the barrier is wrong, there are a fair number of RNA viruses. Some suspect that the origins of life lay in RNA that acted both as information and as functional entity. We actually do not know the replication basis of life prior to the last common ancestor of all life, this is a common problem in molecular paleontology (e.g. recently discovered Y in human points to an older TMRCA comparable to mitochondrial eve, and neither demonstrate the leaky species barrier between desinovans and Neanderthals). Your approach is fallacious in nature, because DNA based cellular life likely represents the most efficient, but probably does not represent the earliest form of life. On a different world other life-forms may not have evolved DNA or nucleotide usage as on earth, in fact it is extremely unlikely they would use the same codons or the same 20 amino acids, and therefore the choice DNA or RNA may also be different. Instead of 2-amino acetic acid (glycine) as a basis it could be 3-amino propionic acids. Instead of using phosphate in the backbone of DNA sulfate or arsenate might be used. Critical events in the evolution of life very early on eventually determine the course that life takes, and some of these events may have been semi-random. You really don't know what life is until you have studied the biochemistry and molecular biology. Try this game out, watch the starting conditions and see what kind of structures evolve. If you play this several times widely different structures will ultimately displace everything, highly dependent on the initial starting conditions, this likely happened as and before the MRCA of all known cells appeared. HTML5 Genetic Algorithm 2D 3-Wheelers - Chrome recommended From a molecular biology point of view (i.e. advanced bio-chemisty) the logical process (informational) is in the structure function relationship of DNA, RNA (including the forgotten t-RNAs) and proteins, there is no contradiction, evolved life has no logic other than it is that which survives and reproduces. The t-RNA are the most important of all, because they are the keepers of the code, without which DNA is completely useless. For example mitochondria lost almost all of their genes, they borrow heavily from their host, but they retain all the t-RNA genes, that is how important these are.

Here's the video. Spoiler alert, apparently mountains can clap. Jokes aside, lead researchers estimate the flat surface of Pluto are less than 100 million years in age. Apparently no impact craters in the visible area of pluto. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33543383

Nah, nah, nah . . . .this problem is way older than the VCR, it goes back to the person who invented the phrase. "Its difficult to make something foolproof because fools are pretty damn clever"

Uh, Science is really grindy on the Mun and Minmus, also. 24 landing and take offs in the first round and another 24 in the second round. That's almost 50 landing and takeoff missions. Try landing at the Muns northern polar lowlands (the exact north pole) that will take the grind out of it, lol. But yeah this is right, with the stipulation that you are going to have to do a fair amount of Kerbin science before you have enough science to safely land on the mun with all the bells and whistles. And at some point you are going to really wish you had a set of WHEELS (training wheels, a donkey cart, a used shopping cart that any bum would push around, a canistoga wagon, roman chariot, an oxcart - this would be a hint for Squad)

I think its best to deal with these together. Note I was poking fun at the biologist, afterall it is they who define species, and it largely species that lack an objective definition. The extremes of the universe are great, from the infinite energy densities of the early universe, to evacuated coldness of intergalactic space. To the massive compressive forces of black holes, to the atomizing energies that expand from super nova. What we consider to be extreme are nothing. Life exists between these extremes and a very narrow band intermediate between boson forming pressures in a black hole complete vacuum of space. life tends to exist at the lower end of pressure scale and the lower end of the tempertature scale, where the covalent bond forming chemicals at temperatures were covelant bond forming chemicals can exist in the liquid, solid or gaseous state. Life on earth exists at the fringe of energy density with the rather large energies being at the center of the planet (mass and temperature), and yet it avoids the cold gasless environment of the upper atmosphere. The zone of life is a border, it is a small band, at the surface on a temperature from about -20 to 100'C and at great pressures up to 300'C. This zone is a convergence of energy from a variety of sources that juxtaposed to each other create chemical energy potentials, added to this there is a constant feed of EM from the sun. There is nothing about this zone that says life must have homeostasis at all times, and the dormancy of some seeds indicate that certain forms of properly preserved could germinate their kind after 1000s to millions of years of all but complete dormancy. You could argue that homeostasis is still present, and I would counter that autodegradation as a consequence of environmental effects (Ozone, Cosmic radiation, radioactive decay) are more likely the explanation that a necessity of homeostasis. The only property of a cell that is not conducive to preserving dehydration are the plasma membranes, you can take many proteins and carefully lypohilize them of all water, and they will happily rehydrate and become active. Of course cells are damaged by long dormancies, but most seeds carry an excess of energy reserves by which they can repair themselves and quickly begin the process of growth. The bacteria you mention are the subset that have evolved to survive long episodes of freezing in arctic ice, not all bacteria survived, but even at -10 life can operate, however below -20' and certainly by -50' life stops. This is the reason we use -80'C freezers to store cells. The largest barrier to cell survival at low temperatures is the stability of the plasma membrane, transitions of temperature close to the melting point of the membrane can cause it to fracture, so that it is best to freeze below that temperature quickly once water has frozen, and avoid getting close to that temperature until one wishes to revive the cells.

We had to throw a biologist in, now we are really screwed. A physical chemist would have a different POV, first off I posted this LN but it seems to have been lost. 80:20 odds that OP = troll. Planetary accretion is driven by gravitational processes that ultimately only factor in minor surface processes such as when a star is sufficiently energetic that most surface processes are volatilized. Accretion process produces a large surface potential on planets, particularly those close to the star in which latent heat or EM can be diverted and there is energyflow in day/night cycles. The surface of the planet is in the margin between internal heat turnover, IR radiation, interplanetary interactions (comet and asteroid collisions) and EM absorption. Because of this there is a tremendous amount of chemical potential between non-homogeneously distributed materials and EM gradients, and the potential exist between temperatures where liquid (non-solid, non-gaseous) chemistry can occur. Both states feed into the liquid state (through ionization and dissolution). But are insufficient in activity to dissolve the thermodynamic disequilibrium that is created by planetary formation and external irradiation. To be specific there is no particular thermodynamic state that is stable, since impactors continue to arrive, radionucleotides continue to decay at the planets core creating tectonic turnover and radiation continues to arrive. Thermodynamic disequilibrium favors catalytic processes that can accelerate toward the most stable state even if the stable state remains distal. Fire can accelerate progression but ultimately is self limited and cannot produce continuity sufficient to sustain an identity and thus cannot but through non-living process create itself (lightning, random chemical interactions). To continually sustain the process a system of information transfer qualifies life. The more efficient forms store information in one form, transmit the information in another form and actualize the information in primary and seconary forms. Because single versions of life ultimately transform one disequilibrium to another disequilibrium (e.g. plants and the snowball earth), the system that is more efficiently catabolic is noted for checking. This qualifies life into biotic states that can be differentiated based on function(s) and inheritance. The checking process occurs as the competition that allows a more consistent flow of energy from the sources of disequilibrium to the ultimate fate (largely infrared radiation). Life generally is multifunctional, meaning for example, multiple functions are required to sustain itself (unlike prions but like viruses). For example, when a plant places a new leaf in the sun, it captures EM before it hits the ground, absorbs some of it, reflects some of it and transmitts some of it. It can store the energy and use it at night when less EM is incoming. It can trap heat closer to the ground allowing the ground to radiate longer (and creating a more homeostatic environment for itself). The next leaf comes along and grabs the EM sooner, a leaf on a different tree then captures the light sooner (competing). When there are too many leaves a herbivore comes along and degrades the leaf, when there are too many herbivores a predator comes and eats the herbivore, and when the predator dies scavengers eat him and eventually remedial bacteria get the rest. Each process is moving the thermodynamic state toward equilibrium gathering energy and using a small proportion to create order, the remainder to produce waste heat. Each process is keeping other parts of the system in a dynamic equilibrium. This is life, should one part of the system fail, then the system becomes less efficient at its task (and you end up with large amounts of O2 and buried coal). Fortunately for us, the disequilibrium created by the sun suffices to continually drive 02 at a faster rate than buried coal undergoes auto and catabolic degradation. Unfortunately for us we have decided to burn this coal to extract more thermodynamic energy. The informational system is driving this process also, and eventually informational systems will reverse the process and if not life will changed to adapt. The structure function relationships are key to identify life, unlike simple catalytic reactions or high heat combustion, life ubiquitously relies on a complex set of structure/functional entities (gene/gene products/product effects) to sustain itself. Even simple viruses have multiple genes, each gene product forms one or more functions, and this can be appended by host cell functions the virus borrows to replicate itself. The functions can be divided into 1. Information processing (sensing and transmission) 2. Translative activity (structural genesis) 3. Secondary processing (oxidation/reduction reactions, structural interactions, modifications, cell building, etc). The dividing lines between each are not strict. This definition of life solves the basic problem of what life is. Within a conducive zone of energy density, thermodynamic disequilibrium can give rise to increasing complex catalytic processes that eventually can sustain a constant conversion of thermodynamic potential into kinetic potential, in a process required in draining some of the energy to create order which can also be sustained and modulated.

Depending on how the camera is lensed the best instruments use separate cameras for non-visible light, lensing distorts the light because different wavelength bend differently in a lens. Of course modern computers can transform filtered images correcting for the lensing effect. This is the reason that large telescopes use mirrors instead of lenses to focus the image. ------------------- Photoelectric effect, sensors can do a binary sorting of photons, they either have sufficient energy to trigger the effect or not. Therefore sensors with thresholds in the visible spectrum can.

If I understand NASAs PR correctly there will be little information sent today, most of the process is data gathering, we will have to wait until the data gathering is finished before NH starts sending whats in its memory. What you can do is take the last image and repost it bigger and bigger and bigger, so it looks like we are approaching. That would be a slow motion hype train wreck.

B&W is more gives better shading, Color gives better composition. You can extract point and shoot color with a spectrograph, which is more desirable anyway since digital cameras only pick up what is filtered and a spectrograph records the spectrum, you can't really verify flourescence with digitized color either, but you can with a spectrograph. Its more efficient to send the shading and spectrum information separately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Telescope_Imaging_Spectrograph (note image to the right) BTW the 67P comet appears to be largely grey tones, as with Ceres. I would rather have the spectrographic information since that informs on chemical composition.

The highest time warp ignores atmosphere, you could set your Pe at 10k alt and the highest time warp would fly right through it. The physics warp often causes terrain collisions, and can kill large ships. (Dont use 4x for wheel vessels on kerbin or landing a space craft) Breaking warp takes too long, the game is not as responsive to reducing warp as it should be. For long journeys (like to Eeloo, its too slow). Individually these problems can be repaired by 1. Anticipating ellipses that intercept atmosphere and dewarping before arriving (Its easy enough to determine the mimimum amount of time required to dewarp, and then find the point on the ellipse that is below 70k alt its time in the future and when the dewarp needs to begin (Sweep rule, keplars laws, orbital bodies sweep the same area per unit time at every point an orbit). 2. Travel too point and click. 3. More responsive down warping. 4. Another time warp level available for hohmann transfers outside of planetary SOI.

Here are your science paydirt Early game Biomes- shores KSC LP RW SPH(2) VAB(2) R&D(2) MC Ad TS FP AC CW Waters (About 3 kilometers offshore) Grasslands Tundra if you can hit it Tools- 1.EVA and goo 2. Mat sci 3. Temp 4. Baro Levels Ground 1 meter to 18000 meters 18000 to 70,000 meters Mid Game low kerbin orbit high kerbin orbit. low munar orbit high munar orbit low minum orbit high minmus orbit kerbol orbit Biomes on Kerbin Desert, highlands, polar, Mountains, Badlands, tundra Midlate game 15 biomes of Mun and 9 biomes of Minmus (2 mat, 2 goo, 1 temp, 1 baro, 1 transmitted soil, 1 stored soil, ground EVA, EVA above) Late game (2nd satellite exploration phase) 15 biomes of Mun and 9 biomes of Minmus (2 mat, 2 goo, 1 soil, 2 seismic, 2 gravoli), gravoli of kerbin biomes in orbit, and siesmic and gravoli on the ground. KSC adds biomes with facility upgrade plus new science tools, revisit KSC sites to gather more science (grindy at best). Late game hard mode Processing lab over Minmus, in Kerbol orbit Late game landers should rotate between science lab in satellite orbit, refueled from kerbin data return during each 'game' should comprise two tried reentry vessels for data. Each vessel holds part of the data for each landing mission. Each game sends science lab and lander to both mun and minmus, the return to high munar orbit to send data back. The lander will have to be replaced for late game missions because of upgraded tools.

Uh, well, you can reject the contract. Though I must say this, if you are Kerbin's premium space agency and, eh-hem, you have the only means to get to space, how exactly do contractor kerbins get stranded in space without a ship or with only a capsule? This I always thought was odd, if you had to rescue kerbals from kerbin I would think that more realistic. And why would they defect when rescued. Im still gathering information around Mun and Meinmos and I have a contract for rescuing some contractor around gilly, realistical, he's toast, and BTW would run out of air and food before I could launch a ship capable of reaching gilly. If say you rescued a competitors craft and kerbal shouldn't you be rewarded with the science of their technology (like getting your hands on a defectors Mig-[Latest thing off the assembly line] BTW NASA has examined atmospheric composition of the moon, several times, I think the Chinese did so as well. We even crash a probe into the moon to see what kind of gases were ejected. However I should point out that the major focus now of space science is astronomy and spectroscopy (Gamma ray observatory, Hubble, Webb) and KSP has only IR and radiotelemetry. So that is a deficiency. There is alot of science dollar support for observational space science. For example before we have a mission to Duna, Jool, Eeloo, etc. shouldn't we have a contract to gather information about the planet by placing a satellite in super-meinmos orbit (surrogate for Kerbin-Kerbol L2). Also shouldn't we have satellites around Kerbin and Kerbol that track asteroids and report on intercepts to the tracking station.

PV = nRT Temperature is in Kelvin. Typical RL daytime/nighttime variation is 10'C (more in deserts less so in tropical forests and during polar winters) so that represents a 3.7% difference in density. Pressure is a surrogate for density Fdrag = k * d * V^2 equilibrium velocity at SL 9.8m/s = k * d * V^2 if situation 1 is 7 m/s then 9.8 = 49 * d * k otherwise d* k = 9.8/49 = .2 Thus if d then drops by 3.7% the d * k = 0.1926 (last two digits trivial) 9.8 / .1926 = 50.88 = 7.13333 Therefore at 7 m/s the mean difference of a 10'C rise is approximately +/- 0.13 m/s therefore temperature should not explain the change unless D/N Temperature variation is considerably more extreme that earth. On earth daytime equilibrium velocity could be lower due to updrafts that occur over freshly plowed fields in mountainous region the down drafts on shaded sides and updrafts on heated slopes can be considerable. I don't know if the OP look at the fuel remaining in his tanks the capsule also has monopropellant, and other devices such as decouplers may have not be deployed completely. Another cause for differences is the landing altitude, vessels that land at higher altitude are landing in less dense air. The atmospheric height in KSP is 5 km represents a 2.6 fold drop in pressure. For launches, throttle changes at 2500 altimeter have the greatest impact on DV, this is because ships are generally accelerating until this altimeter, which means drag has not equilibrated. Once (drag + gravity) = thrust a four fold increase in thrust only doubles the speed. It is very easy to see changes in DV with small changes in velocity.