Detection of triboelectric discharges during dust events on Mars

gizmodo.com

89 points

domofutu

5 days ago


51 comments

wongarsu 10 hours ago

This discovery is thanks to Perseverance having microphones. It's crazy to think about that 2021 was the first time we had working microphones on Mars.

The first Mars Microphone was originally supposed to land in 1999 on the Polar Lander, but that one didn't survive the landing. The next was in 2008 on Phoenix 's Mars Descent Imager, but in integration testing a bug was discovered that made the Descent Imager risky to use, so that was never activated. And on all the rovers since then a microphone wasn't deemed important enough compared to all the other possible payloads

  • foobarbecue 5 hours ago

    > The first Mars Microphone was originally supposed to land in 1999 on the Polar Lander, but that one didn't survive the landing.

    This could be misread to mean that Mars Polar Lander landed but the microphones didn't survive. Mars Polar Lander crashed and was presumed completely destroyed on impact. Last I heard, we still haven't found the crash site in orbital imagery.

  • zokier 8 hours ago

    > The next was in 2008 on Phoenix 's Mars Descent Imager, but in integration testing a bug was discovered that made the Descent Imager risky to use, so that was never activated. And on all the rovers since then a microphone wasn't deemed important enough compared to all the other possible payloads

    There was exactly one Mars rover, Curiosity, between 2008 and Percy.

  • chistev 8 hours ago

    How does this work in practice. If a microphone is up there, it's constantly listening for things right?

    So how do humans here on Earth go over it to know if a sound was picked up knowing there's hours of recording?

    Is it that the whole system is programmed to show a spike when sound is captured?

    • KeplerBoy 8 hours ago

      Listening to hours of recording doesn't even seem like a lot considering this is the only microphone we have on another planet. You would need like 4 people doing this full time, which is a drop in the bucket for a project on this scale.

      Of course this is not how it's done and almost all of the recording will just be wind or noise from the rover itself, which can easily be filtered out.

    • henrebotha 8 hours ago

      This doesn't require anything fancy. I haven't used my sound engineering qualification in 14 years and I could do it by hand. You can visually scan through the recorded waveform and look for shapes that stand out. Simple audio processing techniques like using a noise gate to shut off the volume whenever the input level is below some configured threshold can make this even easier.

    • bobmcnamara 8 hours ago

      If you have enough RAM, start with a ring buffer.

      On interesting event: compress and transfer the relevant chunk of audio from the ring buffer back to Earth.

      Interesting event trigger ideas:

      1) loud sound after quiet time

      2) manual timestamp request from control

      3) video clip recording

      4) midnight, sunrise, noon, sunset. These are mostly so you have some daily baseline.

      5) science package running

      6) rover moving

      7) abrupt camera change

      • TeMPOraL 6 hours ago

        I'd add:

        8) Quiet but above-noise sound persisting for some time (might be worth checking out and then adjusting the cutoff level up, if it turns out to be more wind)

        9) Complete silence (possibly malfunction) or sound levels dropping far below expected background (weird).

    • Sharlin 7 hours ago

      Well, there are these things called computers, and they’re really very good at this stuff. It’s not exactly rocket science (heh) to write a program to listen to an audio stream and mark and log every occurence of something else than background noise and ambient wind sounds (if Martian winds are even loud enough to make sound). Everything else that the rover has to do automatically is way more complicated.

      It’s pretty likely that the entire stream of silence isn’t being stored, or sent to Earth, only the interesting parts. There isn’t any way for people to listen in real time anyway, because communications (can) only happen at specific times of the day. Every interplanetary mission works by sending a preplanned sequence of commands one day, then coming back the next day to see what the probe/rover/whatever sent back, then planning the next set of commands, and so on.

  • PunchyHamster 6 hours ago

    it's wild given how small and light basic microphone is. They even (probably not in 1999 tho) come with their own adc and serial interface now.

    Then again I guess there isn't any obvious need for it aside from PR points for "listening to mars"

    • foobarbecue 5 hours ago

      Yes, and don't forget that you need to modify & certify it to work in 1% of Earth atmospheric pressure and down to -75C, and get it integrated into flight software running on a RAD750.

throwawayffffas 9 hours ago

What blows my mind is that we had not before. I would think that with all that dust flying around it's got to be pretty common. And we have satellites orbiting Mars for decades and apparently we didn't see any.

shevy-java 8 hours ago

Thor is there, swinging his ...

hammer.

Edit: Wait a moment ... that's not actually lightning?

"By listening to the sounds of Mars, the team identified interference and acoustic signatures in the recordings that are characteristic of lightning."

So they could only listen to sound? I mean, aren't pictures more convincing? We need more cameras on Mars.

irjustin 8 hours ago

This isn't lightning like we think on earth. It's only a few centimeters long which is why it's never been detected before except by microphone[0].

[0] https://www.kpbs.org/news/science-technology/2025/11/26/at-l...

  • yesco 8 hours ago

    Wouldn't it be static electricity in that case and not lightning? Not sure if this is just a technical definition thing I'm missing or if lightning just makes a cooler sounding headline.

    • moron4hire 5 hours ago

      Lightning is static electricity that builds in an atmosphere.

      • zamadatix 4 hours ago

        And a mountain is a bump on the ground. It does feel like "lightning" comes with context beyond how the charge was formed, even if it could be technically correct to say that's all it is. Of course almost nobody knows what triboelectric discharge is either, but sticking to "static electricity" fits well between the two.

keepamovin 8 hours ago

How do we know it's not alien lightsaber battles tho?

chistev 8 hours ago

What are the implications for life?

  • kadoban an hour ago

    Vaguely positive for abiogenesis, but not in a way that really moves the needle at all.

amelius 9 hours ago

Strange that the article doesn't say what this means for the formation of life.

  • tsimionescu 4 hours ago

    Does it mean anything? There are some theories that lightning could be involved in abiogenesis on Earth, but it's not in any way a clear thing.

dgb23 8 hours ago

Galvanizing!

  • keepamovin 8 hours ago

    I see waht you did there. But your comment is so subtle, it's boiling the frog of HN's humor reflex

Razengan 10 hours ago

Does that mean Mars' ground is electrically charged (positively or negatively) or what?

  • saagarjha 9 hours ago

    I assume it's earthe–wait.

verisimi 10 hours ago

[flagged]

  • stavros 10 hours ago

    Are you saying you reject the use of "we" for any group that doesn't include you?

    • freehorse 9 hours ago

      I assume it is essentially more about if it includes the author of the article. In the specific case, the author is a journalist not a scientist part of the actual group that did the work, so their "we" seems to forcingly include everybody in the planet, thus also OP here. I dont think OP would have an issue if one of the scientists in this case used "we".

      • stavros 9 hours ago
        2 more

        Ah good shout, I was assuming the author of the article was also on the team of the discovery, but it's Gizmodo, so I shouldn't have thought that.

        • freehorse 8 hours ago

          Yeah tbh the comment sounded weird to me at first, prob because the actual problem is not that I (ie the reader) am not part of the people that made the discovery, but because the author of the article who uses "we" is not. Maybe if I was part of such a discovery it would actually feel even weirder reading somebody I have not worked with on it as "we did it", but I have not been part of such a newsworthy discovery to test it.

    • Razengan 10 hours ago

      It's specially annoying when people use it to latch on to achievements they had no part in. Like Americans today going "We stopped Hitler" etc.

      • temp0826 9 hours ago

        I use it to give credit to peers if I've done something good (and maybe to take/share some blame if I wasn't directly responsible). The one that makes me cringe is people saying us/we when referring to their preferred sportsball team though

      • komali2 9 hours ago

        For this reason I've never understood the emotion "pride" when applied to anything you didn't personally do.

        For example pride in getting a bug fixed, or running a personal record lap, makes perfect sense. But "proud to be an American," or "proud of our troops," "proud of some sports team," I just don't get it.

      • stavros 9 hours ago

        Ah, in that sense yeah, I also feel similarly. I thought that the article was written by someone on the discovering team, hence my confusion.

  • wongarsu 10 hours ago

    I'd assume most French would be happy with "France detected Lightning on Mars"

    I read the title as equivalent to "Humanity detected Lightning on Mars", which I'm also perfectly happy with

    • freehorse 10 hours ago

      The journalist writing the article starts with

      > Scientists analyzed 28 hours of recordings over two Martian years, listening for electrical signals.

      Not with

      > We analyzed 28 hours of recordings over two Martian years, listening for electrical signals.

      Nor

      > Humanity analyzed 28 hours of recordings over two Martian years, listening for electrical signals.

      Somehow it would be weird to assume that "everybody" put the effort into this, but "we" all reap the success.

      On the other hand, this is done with taxpayer money, and even if not, it is done in the context of the whole global economy and we are all interconnected and everybody steps on the shoulders of giants anyway, so, in the grand scale of things, a use of "we" can make sense for everything that happens.

      Moreover, OP's argument holds also for the france case anyway.

    • simgt 10 hours ago

      I did not think much of the title before reading the parent comment as I also read "humanity", but now it's the lack of consistency and double standards that annoy me. "France detected Lightning on Mars", fine, let's stop cutting the funding of public research so we can keep on saying we. Also let's title "We released GPT-5", "We landed a rocket on a barge".

      • thatjoeoverthr 9 hours ago

        Maybe let's extend it to negative things, too. "We crashed a Yugo into a bollard."

  • baiwl 9 hours ago

    Right? It wasn’t me. So was it Gizmodo, the website where this was posted?

  • thatjoeoverthr 10 hours ago

    I assume you're downvoted for pedantry (understandable) but it is a real pattern. Whenever it's a space topic it's always "we" or "Japan" or "America". Nobody is so vague on other topics. I suspect it's a throwback to the Cold War space race when the major players did flights in a geopolitical context. If the institute's name is very long, like here, maybe "Scientists detected ..." or "Researchers ..."

    • genezeta 9 hours ago

      > Whenever it's a space topic

      It relates "us" to "earthlings". We, as in "humans", live on Earth. Space is "outside". We humans look outside to space and discover things there.

      I feel it's more that sense of making clear that it's "us", humans, doing the discovery vs some other species or entity out there.

    • wongarsu 9 hours ago

      Imho it's a quirk due to English's hate for the passive voice. Most languages would just go with "Lightning was detected on Mars". Naming the institute does not add any value to the average reader here, nor does the word "Scientists". "France" adds a bit of value, so that'd be the next best thing after the passive voice

      • freehorse 9 hours ago

        Passive voice in english is fine but it does not make for as catchy news articles (as also in other languages).

        "Scientists detected lighting on mars" is also just fine.