Summary of meeting with Ted on 4/20

Today I had Ted read my "Section 3" of my paper draft. Some thoughts and action items that fell out of that:

• The paper will really have to deal with the ammonia issue head-on. Probably with a dedicated section.
• We'll have to relate *why* hot cores tell you anything about ices.
• References: the early HDO detection by Jacq, T
  & Nathan's HDO/H2O paper in Orion. (tsr – actually it appears that this is Justin's paper. )
  D/H in Orion is enhanced, inconsistent with the observed temperature, indicating that it was created in an "earlier phase". That's also a big reason why we think the rich organics are found.
• There *may* be a gas-phase reshuffle of the evaporated ices, but we expect this won't ruin the overall nitrogen accounting.
• We tried to see if the DCN/HCN ratio told us anything. It's inconclusive. We couldn't find strong DCN vibrational lines in the hexos spectra. (Lines @ 507ish GHz.)
• Revision of the central point of this work: Ammonia and HCN are the carriers to follow. HCN is the organic carrier. Ammonia needs to be chemically processed before it could be the key progenitor of N in rocks.
• Actually – amendment to the above point – Scott Messenger mentions "Organic globules" from the planetary science / meteoritics literature that contain possibly ammonia-formaldehyde polymers, so maybe ammonia can be a direct progenitor after all.
• So to bring it back – Tom, can we use the following statement as an argument for HCN over NH3?
• "Nh3 doesn't have the right 15N enrichment to be a progenitor of Earth's nitrogen"
• Tom: check the Hily-Blant paper for anything pointing to this.
• NH3 *is* present in the ices, but it's not clear whether it's with the water or the organic material... separate or together. (Tom doesn't fully get this last point.)