The second image was equalized using Adobe Photoshop on my ‘puter.

The last two images were isolated from the .gif file.

The upper image shows very few pixels brighter than about 150, the few outliers to the right being the feature of interest. In the lower image, it appears that the range has been mapped to fill the full dynamic range 0-255, so that the lighter areas on the dayward side are now brighter,and the feature of interest appears saturated.

It appears that there are two separate bright spots, but as the processing is applied, they appear to merge into one single area. You can see the individual pixels in these images, and any bleed from one to another will only be exaggerated by the effects of the stretch, as if you were deliberately throwing a telescopic image out of focus. This results from the point spread function of the sensor–i.e., each pixel does not just record the brightness of exactly that one square on the ground it covers, but also includes some brightness information from the surrounding area, and it contributes to the brightness values of the surrounding pixels. Even a point source much smaller than one pixel would bleed into the surrounding pixels. As you map the brightness, it tends to blur the image, the price you pay for increasing the contrast.

Conclusion: not only are the spots real, and brighter than the surrounding area, I think they are much brighter than their surroundings. And there are definitely two of them, that is not an artifact of the processing.

The terminator frames:

If the planetoid surface was sooty black, and the substrate a lighter, but still a dark gray (like old asphalt, or sediment-laden ices), the image could still be processed to make them look that bright. I wouldn’t worry about angles of incidence, this is not specular reflection, or it would not remain so consistently bright until just before it went into shadow beyond the terminator. Its just a patch of lighter gray than its surroundings, and it may not be all that much lighter. The interesting thing about it is how its only in that crater, and only on the tip of the central peak. Maybe this is a new feature, the result of a relatively recent impact, and the sub-surface material has not had a chance to darken up yet.

Asteroids are particularly interesting because they are accretion bodies. They are made up of an accumulation of objects that struck them. But accreting planetesimals either adhere, (perhaps after knocking off some debris), or tend to break the body apart altogether. These two processes work simultaneously, but against each other, probably influenced by the interplay of a variety of local conditions. Which gets the upper hand in the long run determines whether you get a planet or nothing at all. Like everything else in nature, its a totally random process gently guided by subtle external forces. Unexpected resonances appear in unpredictable places and times.

Are the asteroids there because that is a part of the solar system were conditions did not favor either planet building or sweeping the orbit clean, but something in between? As the largest asteroid, and one old enough to be gravitationaly spheroidal, Ceres might hold some clues as to the chemical and dynamical history of the early solar system. Crater statistics (relative sizes and number of overlaps)could give us a lot of clues as to the early environment of the primordial solar nebula.

As an aside, a lot of these rocky bodies are quite dark. For example, the full moon looks blinding yellow-white against a dark sky, but it is made of very dark material. Take a camera with a light meter and get a reading of the brightness of a black asphalt road at noon. Use that shutter speed and aperture and take a photo of the night moon and it will come out perfectly exposed. The sky and stars behind it, of course, will be pitch black. Its the same trick a photographer will use to photograph a face in the shade on a bright, sunlit beach. Get in close, get a meter reading on the shadowed face, then step back and take your shot. The sand and sky will be over-exposed, but the face will be perfectly recognizable.

Trying to figure angles of incidence here. Is it tall, or is it a nearly vertical surface?

Maybe the smaller bright spot is an image artifact from the very bright primary spot?

I haven’t found the raw images online. Would like to.

Aside from the bright spots, the variety of overlapping craters is amazing.

A volcanic eruption in the central peak would not suddenly fade out going into shadow, and surely Ceres is too small and cold to have any lava-type activity anyway. I can’t think of any geological event or feature that would look like that.

This might be something truly wonderful.

Watch as the bright spot goes through the terminator:

I’ll post when possible..

The more I think about it. the more I’m inclined to think the brilliant white spots on that crater floor have more to do with how the image was processed than anything else.

No doubt, the white spots scattered around the planetoid are real, and some process suggested by your example may very well be their cause. But it is likely that the imagery may have been deliberately processed so that areas brighter than their surroundings are boosted in brightness to make them stand out easier. In other words, the bright feature may be real, but the exaggerated high contrast against its surroundings may be an artifact. It might just be dirty snow after all.

Keep us posted as new imagery comes in.

I’m picturing a thicker crust, where only the bigger impacts result in penetrating this ice mantle.

Or, it is only the bigger impacts that fracture the overburden to the point where the ductal ice mantle begins to move to the surface as a diapir.

Maybe the ice is not a mantle, but a layer, and a discontinuous one at that? There does seem to be a tendency for higher albedo anomalies at the upper pole of the sphere.

Observational bias, I suppose. I’ve been interested in Upheaval Dome (Wikipedia) ever since I stood on it’s rim back in the mid 80′s. The debate has long been salt dome verses impact. I like both models. An impact occurs in a column of sediments that include a highly ductile layer at depth. The impact doesn’t penetrate that layer, but does fracture the overburden to allow the deep ductile layer to move upwards.

I also picture one of those geodesic domes from Silent Running (1972).

(links added post-post)