33 comments
  • wongarsu15h

    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

    • foobarbecue11h

      > 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.

    • zokier14h

      > 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.

    • chistev14h

      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?

      • KeplerBoy14h

        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.

      • henrebotha14h

        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.

      • bobmcnamara13h

        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

        • TeMPOraL12h

          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).

      • Sharlin13h

        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.

    • PunchyHamster11h

      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"

      • foobarbecue11h

        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.

      • retrac5h

        Bandwidth and storage.

        The Viking landers (1975) were very sophisticated with robotic arms and mass spectrometers, adorable little anemometers, digital colour cameras, the whole deal, with 5 megabytes of digital tape storage.

        The downlink rate was 16 kbps when related by the matched orbiter; otherwise direct communication was at 250 bps.

        The digital cameras were pushing the absolute limit of technology at the time. The digitizer produced a 16 kbps bitstream that fed the uncompressed image directly to the transmitter taking four minutes to send an image. It could also be stored on tape for later transmission, but it used much of the tape to do so.

        If it had included a microphone and ADC, it would have been technically possible to record a few minutes of audio and then spend hours transferring it back to Earth. But the kind of constant monitoring now done really depends on the more than 1 Mbit/s of bandwidth now available thanks to half a dozen Martian orbiters, and all the fancy processors and gigabytes of storage the landers and rovers now have.

  • throwawayffffas15h

    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-java14h

    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.

  • irjustin14h

    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...

    • yesco14h

      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.

      • nomel5h

        I think this is a mix of not having a word for this specific phenomenon, so inappropriately applying the closest, and the usual bad science reporting. They don't call it lighting in the actual paper, because not all discharge events are lightning.

      • moron4hire11h

        Lightning is static electricity that builds in an atmosphere.

        • zamadatix9h

          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.

        • nomel5h

          Lightning is a discharge of static electricity, but a discharge of static electricity is not lightning.

  • keepamovin14h

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

  • chistev14h

    What are the implications for life?

    • kadoban7h

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

    • stronglikedan11h

      same as before

  • amelius15h

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

    • tsimionescu10h

      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.

  • dgb2314h

    Galvanizing!

    • keepamovin14h

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

  • Razengan15h

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