#3658 MADE UP DOCUMENTS for Knowledge Graph Prototyping

Can you help me make up documents summarizing Gateway Element systems and subsystems?

Gemini 2.5 Pro: List in order of importance to an engineering knowledge graph for NASA Gateway Program: concept of operations, interface control documents, operations manuals, and other documents that I am forgetting. The intent is to support systems analysis and scenario analysis and response.
Can you generate mock documents with complete content for use in a prototype knowledge graph?

Consider supporting the following document types, in order of priority: Interface Control Document, FMECA/FMEA, Hazard Report, Concept of Operations, Operations Manual & Procedures, System and Subsystem Requirements Document, Verification and Validation Document, Design and Description Document & Schematics, System Budgets and Resource Tracking
How would these documents appear in the knowledge graph?
List and describe 15 great technical questions that the knowledge graph could easily support
Yes <= If you want, I can bundle these into a .cypher seed file (including the constraints and example PPE↔HALO scaffolding) so you can run it in Neo4j Browser as-is.
Yes <= Want me to expand this seed with more elements (ESPRIT, Airlock, I-Hab, Logistics) and auto-generate starter requirements/ICD stubs for each?
___ <= When you’re ready, I can add: FMECA tables per subsystem, more structured requirement fields, or auto-generate ICD spec rows (InterfaceSpec) from a CSV.

#3658 Can you help me make up documents summarizing Gateway Element systems and subsystems?

Yes — I can help you make structured summary documents for the Gateway Elements and their systems/subsystems. Since you’re aiming at usable documentation (for reports, knowledge graphs, or process docs), I’ll draft a clear, modular format you can expand across all elements.

Here’s a first pass, covering major Gateway Elements (HALO, PPE, Logistics, ESPRIT, Airlock, Lunar I-Hab), each with an outline of systems and subsystems.

📄 Gateway Element Summaries

1. Power and Propulsion Element (PPE)

Role: Provides Gateway’s solar electric propulsion, electrical power, and communication backbone.

Major Systems

Solar Electric Propulsion System
- Hall-effect thrusters
- Power processing units (PPUs)
- Xenon feed system and tanks
Power System
- Roll-out solar arrays (ROSA)
- Power distribution and control units
- Battery storage and management
Communications System
- High-gain antenna
- S-band and Ka-band links
GN&C (Guidance, Navigation, and Control)
- Reaction wheels
- Star trackers
- Inertial measurement units (IMUs)

2. Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO)

Role: Pressurized living/working module, provides early crew habitation, control, and docking.

Major Systems

Environmental Control & Life Support (ECLSS)
- Atmosphere management (O₂, CO₂, trace gas)
- Thermal control loops
- Potable water distribution
Command and Data Handling (C&DH)
- Flight computers
- Data buses and storage
Docking System
- International Docking System Standard (IDSS) ports
Communications
- Internal audio/data links
Crew Support
- Sleep stations
- Lighting, displays, controls

3. Logistics Module

Role: Cargo resupply and storage (delivered by commercial providers, e.g., Dragon XL).

Major Systems

Pressurized Cargo Storage
- Payload racks
- Cold stowage/freezers
Unpressurized Cargo Carriers
- External attachment for ORUs (Orbital Replacement Units)
Docking and Berthing
- IDSS/CBM interface to Gateway

4. ESPRIT (European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications)

Role: Adds refueling capability, extra comms, and crew observation area.

Major Systems

Refueling System
- Xenon transfer tanks
- Propellant transfer plumbing
Comms Augmentation
- Additional relay antennas
Science/Observation Window
- Cupola-like viewing area
- Crew workstation

5. Airlock Module

Role: Provides crew and payload EVA access.

Major Systems

Crew Lock
- Pressure-tight hatch
- EVA prep/depress system
Equipment Lock
- Tool and suit storage
- Suit umbilicals
Atmosphere Management
- Vacuum pumps
- Pressure equalization

6. International Habitat (I-Hab)

Role: Long-duration crew habitation, science, and working space (led by ESA + JAXA).

Major Systems

Expanded ECLSS
- CO₂ scrubbers (regenerative)
- Water recovery systems
Crew Accommodation
- Galley/food prep
- Expanded sleeping quarters
Avionics
- Redundant C&DH
- Internal/external networking
Docking & Interfaces
- Multiple IDSS ports for visiting vehicles

📌 Suggested Document Format

If you want these as separate documents, each can be structured like this:

Element Name
Role: One-paragraph mission role description
Major Systems: Bulleted by functional area
Subsystems: Nested bullets with brief descriptions
Interfaces: Key interfaces with other Gateway elements

👉 Do you want me to (a) generate these as formal Word/PDF documents (one per element), or (b) produce them as a consolidated technical report with sections for each element?

Consider supporting the following document types, in order of priority: Interface Control Document, FMECA/FMEA, Hazard Report, Concept of Operations, Operations Manual & Procedures, System and Subsystem Requirements Document, Verification and Validation Document, Design and Description Document & Schematics, System Budgets and Resource Tracking

Got it ✅ — you want structured Gateway Element systems/subsystems documentation aligned to the types of technical documents actually used in NASA/DoD-class engineering projects.

Here’s a framework showing how to build each document type for Gateway Elements (e.g., PPE, HALO, Logistics, ESPRIT, Airlock, I-Hab). This is a modular setup: one core System/Subsystem Breakdown feeds into all these document types.

📑 Gateway Document Support Framework

1. Interface Control Document (ICD)

Purpose: Define physical, functional, and data interfaces between Gateway Elements.

Sections:

Overview of the Element (PPE, HALO, etc.)
External Interfaces
- Docking ports (IDSS/CBM)
- Power exchange (kW levels, bus voltages, grounding schemes)
- Data interfaces (1553 bus, SpaceWire, optical comms, RF bands)
- Thermal interfaces (fluid loops, radiators)
Internal Interfaces (with subsystems)
Interface Diagrams (schematics, tables)
Change/Configuration Control Process

2. FMECA / FMEA (Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis)

Purpose: Identify possible failures at subsystem/component level, assess severity and detectability.

Sections:

System/Subsystem breakdown (tree structure)
Failure modes per subsystem (e.g., PPE Thruster → Xenon feed blockage)
Failure effects (local, propagated to Gateway level)
Severity classification (Catastrophic, Critical, Marginal, Minor)
Detection/Isolation methods
Mitigation strategies (redundancy, fault protection software)
Criticality ranking tables

3. Hazard Report

Purpose: Capture hazards, causes, controls, and verifications (for safety compliance).

Sections:

Hazard Statement (e.g., "Loss of atmosphere in HALO")
Causes (micrometeoroid impact, seal leakage)
Hazard Controls (dual hatch, pressure sensors, EVA procedures)
Verification of Controls (test, analysis, inspection, demonstration)
Hazard Closure Criteria

4. Concept of Operations (ConOps)

Purpose: Describe how the system is intended to be used by operators/crew.

Sections:

Mission Role (what this element contributes to Gateway ops)
Operational Modes (nominal, contingency, safe-mode)
Crew/ground interaction (manual vs. automated)
Docking/undocking flows (for HALO/Logistics)
Resupply/refueling ops (for ESPRIT/Logistics)
EVA support (Airlock ConOps)
Timeline of ops (pre-launch → assembly → operations → disposal)

5. Operations Manual & Procedures

Purpose: Crew/ground instructions for operating the element safely.

Sections:

Normal Operations
- Startup, checkout, shutdown
Contingency Procedures
- Fire, depressurization, power loss
Maintenance / replacement steps
EVA procedures (Airlock)
Step-by-step flowcharts

6. System & Subsystem Requirements Document (SSRD)

Purpose: Formal list of requirements traceable to program-level Gateway requirements.

Sections:

Performance requirements (thrust levels, power capacity, ECLSS O₂ %, etc.)
Functional requirements (docking, refueling, comms links)
Environmental requirements (thermal, radiation, vibration loads)
Safety requirements
Reliability/availability requirements
Traceability Matrix (to NPR 7150.2D, NASA-STD-8739.8, Gateway Program Req Docs)

7. Verification and Validation (V&V) Document

Purpose: Show how requirements are tested, analyzed, demonstrated, or inspected.

Sections:

Requirements Verification Matrix (RVM)
Verification Methods:
- Test (thruster firing, pressure test)
- Analysis (thermal modeling, orbital dynamics)
- Inspection (welds, harness routing)
- Demonstration (crew procedure execution)
Validation (end-to-end ops scenarios prove the system meets mission goals)

8. Design and Description Document & Schematics

Purpose: Technical description of systems and subsystems.

Sections:

System architecture overview
Subsystem descriptions
Schematics (block diagrams, wiring diagrams, thermal loops, fluid routing)
CAD models / drawings references
Redundancy and cross-strapping diagrams

9. System Budgets and Resource Tracking

Purpose: Track allocated vs. actual resources (mass, power, volume, data rate).

Sections:

Mass Budget (allocated, estimated, margin, contingency)
Power Budget (PPE provides X kW, HALO consumes Y kW, margins)
Thermal Budget (radiator sizing, waste heat)
Data Budget (uplink/downlink bandwidth allocations)
Consumables (O₂, H₂O, xenon, logistics resupply cadence)

🔄 Workflow Across Documents

Subsystem Tree (System Breakdown Structure) is the root.
ICDs define boundaries → feed Requirements.
Requirements → drive FMEA/FMECA + Hazard Reports.
Hazards & FMECA → flow into Ops Manuals & ConOps.
Verification & Validation → proves compliance.
Budgets → continuously updated, tied to design baseline.

👉 Question for you:
Do you want me to draft example templates (with placeholder content for, say, PPE or HALO) so you can replicate across all Gateway Elements, or should I generate full draft content (detailed subsystem-level entries) for each document type and element right away?

How would these documents appear in the knowledge graph?

Great question. Here’s a compact, implementation-ready way to represent those document types and their traceability in a Neo4j-style knowledge graph so everything stays linkable all the way from Element → Subsystem → Requirement → Evidence (tests, analyses, procedures), plus hazards, interfaces, and budgets.

High-level modeling (labels & key relationships)

Product structure
- :Program ──[:INCLUDES]──> :Element (e.g., PPE, HALO)
- :Element ──[:HAS_SYSTEM]──> :System ──[:HAS_SUBSYSTEM]──> :Subsystem
- :Element|:System|:Subsystem ──[:HAS_INTERFACE_ENDPOINT]──> :InterfaceEndpoint
- :Interface connects two endpoints: (:InterfaceEndpoint)-[:CONNECTS]->(:InterfaceEndpoint)
Documents (as first-class nodes)
- :Document {doc_type, id, title, rev, date, owner, uri}
  - doc_type ∈ { "ICD","FMECA","FMEA","HazardReport","ConOps","OpsManual","SSRD","VVD","DesignDoc","Budget" }
- Sections are addressable:
  - :DocSection {sec_id, title, anchor} with (:Document)-[:HAS_SECTION]->(:DocSection)
  - Any node can cite a section: (:Requirement)-[:CITED_IN]->(:DocSection)
Requirements & V&V
- :Requirement {req_id, text, level, status}
- :Verification {verif_id, method ∈ Test|Analysis|Inspection|Demo, result, status}
- :Validation {val_id, scenario, result, status}
- Trace:
  - (:Requirement)-[:ALLOCATED_TO]->(:System|:Subsystem)
  - (:Requirement)-[:DERIVED_FROM]->(:Requirement) (parent/child)
  - (:Requirement)-[:SATISFIED_BY]->(:System|:Subsystem)
  - (:Requirement)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(:Verification)
  - (:Requirement)-[:VALIDATED_BY]->(:Validation)
  - Evidence points back to docs: (:Verification|:Validation)-[:EVIDENCE_IN]->(:DocSection)
ICD / Interfaces
- :Interface {if_id, type, power_V, power_kW, data_proto, thermal_loop, notes}
- :InterfaceSpec {name, value, units, tolerance}
- Links:
  - (:Interface)-[:DEFINED_IN]->(:DocSection) (from an ICD)
  - (:Interface)-[:HAS_SPEC]->(:InterfaceSpec)
  - Endpoints:
    - (:Interface)-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(:InterfaceEndpoint)
    - (:InterfaceEndpoint)-[:OF_SYSTEM]->(:System|:Subsystem)
FMEA/FMECA & Hazards
- :FailureMode {fm_id, description, cause, local_effect, next_higher_effect, severity, occurrence, detectability, RPN}
- :Control {ctrl_id, type, description} (design, hardware, software, procedural)
- :Hazard {hz_id, statement, cause_summary, risk_class, status}
- Links:
  - (:FailureMode)-[:OF]->(:Subsystem|:System)
  - (:FailureMode)-[:CONTROLLED_BY]->(:Control)
  - (:FailureMode)-[:DOCUMENTED_IN]->(:DocSection) (FMEA/FMECA)
  - (:Hazard)-[:CAUSED_BY]->(:FailureMode)
  - (:Hazard)-[:CONTROLLED_BY]->(:Control)
  - (:Control)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(:Verification)
ConOps & Ops
- :OpMode {name}; :Procedure {proc_id, title}; :Step {idx, action}
- (:ConOpsScenario {name, timeline})
- Links:
  - (:Element)-[:HAS_MODE]->(:OpMode)
  - (:Procedure)-[:FOR_MODE]->(:OpMode)
  - (:Procedure)-[:HAS_STEP]->(:Step)
  - (:Procedure)-[:DOCUMENTED_IN]->(:DocSection)
  - (:ConOpsScenario)-[:USES]->(:Procedure|:System|:Interface)
Design & Budgets
- :DesignArtifact {name, type ∈ BlockDiagram|Harness|Thermal|CAD, uri}
- :BudgetItem {type ∈ Mass|Power|Thermal|Data|Consumable, allocated, estimated, margin, units, epoch}
- Links:
  - (:DesignArtifact)-[:DESCRIBED_IN]->(:DocSection)
  - (:BudgetItem)-[:FOR]->(:Element|:System|:Subsystem)
  - (:BudgetItem)-[:TRACKED_IN]->(:Document {doc_type:"Budget"})

Minimal Cypher bootstrap (constraints)


CREATE CONSTRAINT uniq_req IF NOT EXISTS FOR (r:Requirement) REQUIRE r.req_id IS UNIQUE;
CREATE CONSTRAINT uniq_doc IF NOT EXISTS FOR (d:Document) REQUIRE d.id IS UNIQUE;
CREATE CONSTRAINT uniq_if  IF NOT EXISTS FOR (i:Interface) REQUIRE i.if_id IS UNIQUE;
CREATE CONSTRAINT uniq_fm  IF NOT EXISTS FOR (f:FailureMode) REQUIRE f.fm_id IS UNIQUE;
CREATE CONSTRAINT uniq_hz  IF NOT EXISTS FOR (h:Hazard) REQUIRE h.hz_id IS UNIQUE;

Example: PPE ↔ HALO electrical/data ICD with trace


// Elements & systems
MERGE (ppe:Element {name:"PPE"})-[:HAS_SYSTEM]->(ppePwr:System {name:"PPE Power"})
MERGE (halo:Element {name:"HALO"})-[:HAS_SYSTEM]->(haloPwr:System {name:"HALO Power"})
MERGE (haloCdh:System {name:"HALO C&DH"})<-[:HAS_SYSTEM]-(halo)

// ICD document + sections
MERGE (icd:Document {id:"ICD-PPE-HALO-001", doc_type:"ICD", title:"PPE–HALO ICD", rev:"A", uri:"https://example/icd"})
MERGE (secElec:DocSection {sec_id:"ICD-001-4.2", title:"Electrical Power Interface"})
MERGE (secData:DocSection {sec_id:"ICD-001-5.1", title:"Data Interface"})
MERGE (icd)-[:HAS_SECTION]->(secElec)
MERGE (icd)-[:HAS_SECTION]->(secData)

// Endpoints
MERGE (ppeEP:InterfaceEndpoint {id:"EP-PPE-PWR"})-[:OF_SYSTEM]->(ppePwr)
MERGE (haloEP:InterfaceEndpoint {id:"EP-HALO-PWR"})-[:OF_SYSTEM]->(haloPwr)
MERGE (ppeDataEP:InterfaceEndpoint {id:"EP-PPE-DATA"})-[:OF_SYSTEM]->(ppePwr)
MERGE (haloDataEP:InterfaceEndpoint {id:"EP-HALO-DATA"})-[:OF_SYSTEM]->(haloCdh)

// Interfaces
MERGE (ifPwr:Interface {if_id:"IF-PPE-HALO-PWR", type:"Power", power_V:120, notes:"Primary 120Vdc bus"})
MERGE (ifPwr)-[:DEFINED_IN]->(secElec)
MERGE (ifPwr)-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(ppeEP)
MERGE (ifPwr)-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(haloEP)

MERGE (ifData:Interface {if_id:"IF-PPE-HALO-DATA", type:"Data", data_proto:"SpaceWire"})
MERGE (ifData)-[:DEFINED_IN]->(secData)
MERGE (ifData)-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(ppeDataEP)
MERGE (ifData)-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(haloDataEP)

// Specs
MERGE (vSpec:InterfaceSpec {name:"Voltage"}) SET vSpec.value=120, vSpec.units="Vdc"
MERGE (ifPwr)-[:HAS_SPEC]->(vSpec)

Requirements & V&V stitched to those interfaces


// Requirements tied to interfaces and systems
MERGE (r1:Requirement {req_id:"HALO-PWR-001", text:"HALO shall accept 120Vdc from PPE with ≥2kW continuous.", level:"System"})
MERGE (r2:Requirement {req_id:"HALO-DATA-003", text:"HALO shall exchange telemetry with PPE over SpaceWire at ≥100 Mbps.", level:"System"})

MERGE (r1)-[:ALLOCATED_TO]->(haloPwr)
MERGE (r2)-[:ALLOCATED_TO]->(haloCdh)

MERGE (r1)-[:CITED_IN]->(secElec)
MERGE (r2)-[:CITED_IN]->(secData)

// Verification artifacts
MERGE (v1:Verification {verif_id:"V-HALO-PWR-001", method:"Test", status:"Planned"})
MERGE (v2:Verification {verif_id:"V-HALO-DATA-003", method:"Analysis", status:"InWork"})

MERGE (r1)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(v1)
MERGE (r2)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(v2)

// Evidence linkage to document sections (e.g., test procedure or analysis report sections)
MERGE (tpSec:DocSection {sec_id:"OPS-TP-12", title:"Power Acceptance Test Procedure"})<-[:HAS_SECTION]-
      (opsDoc:Document {id:"OPS-HALO-TP", doc_type:"OpsManual", title:"HALO Operations & Tests", rev:"B"})
MERGE (arSec:DocSection {sec_id:"AN-42", title:"SpaceWire Throughput Analysis"})<-[:HAS_SECTION]-
      (anaDoc:Document {id:"ANA-SW-THR", doc_type:"VVD", title:"Data Link Analysis", rev:"C"})

MERGE (v1)-[:EVIDENCE_IN]->(tpSec)
MERGE (v2)-[:EVIDENCE_IN]->(arSec)

FMEA/FMECA & Hazards tied to SSRD and ICD


// Failure mode on HALO Power affecting the interface
MERGE (fm:FailureMode {fm_id:"FM-HALO-PWR-OVERV", description:"Over-voltage at HALO input",
  cause:"PPE regulation fault", local_effect:"HALO PDU trips", next_higher_effect:"Loss of HALO loads",
  severity:"Critical", occurrence:"Remote", detectability:"Moderate", RPN:84})
MERGE (fm)-[:OF]->(haloPwr)

// Controls & verification
MERGE (ctrl:Control {ctrl_id:"CTRL-OVP-001", type:"Hardware", description:"OVP clamp + crowbar in HALO PDU"})
MERGE (fm)-[:CONTROLLED_BY]->(ctrl)
MERGE (vCtrl:Verification {verif_id:"V-OVP-QUAL", method:"Test", status:"Passed"})
MERGE (ctrl)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(vCtrl)

// Documentation ties
MERGE (fmSec:DocSection {sec_id:"FMECA-3.2.1", title:"HALO Power FMECA"})<-[:HAS_SECTION]-
      (:Document {id:"FMECA-HALO-PWR", doc_type:"FMECA", title:"HALO Power FMECA", rev:"A"})
MERGE (fm)-[:DOCUMENTED_IN]->(fmSec)

MERGE (hz:Hazard {hz_id:"HZ-DEPRESS-001", statement:"Crew exposure due to HALO depressurization",
  cause_summary:"Seal failure or MMOD strike", risk_class:"Cat I", status:"Open"})
MERGE (hz)-[:CAUSED_BY]->(fm)
MERGE (hz)-[:CONTROLLED_BY]->(ctrl)

Budgets & tracking


MERGE (budDoc:Document {id:"BUD-2025-GWY", doc_type:"Budget", title:"Gateway System Budgets 2025", rev:"D"})
MERGE (pwrBud:BudgetItem {type:"Power", allocated:60.0, estimated:54.5, margin:5.5, units:"kW", epoch:"2025-08-01"})
MERGE (pwrBud)-[:FOR]->(ppe)
MERGE (pwrBud)-[:TRACKED_IN]->(budDoc)

MERGE (massBud:BudgetItem {type:"Mass", allocated:8500, estimated:8120, margin:380, units:"kg", epoch:"2025-08-01"})
MERGE (massBud)-[:FOR]->(halo)
MERGE (massBud)-[:TRACKED_IN]->(budDoc)

Typical queries you’ll want (copy/paste)

1) Show all ICD-defined interfaces between PPE and HALO with specs


MATCH (ppe:Element {name:"PPE"})-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]->()<-[:OF_SYSTEM]-(e1:InterfaceEndpoint)<-[:USES_ENDPOINT]-(i:Interface)-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(e2:InterfaceEndpoint)-[:OF_SYSTEM]->()<-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]-(halo:Element {name:"HALO"})
OPTIONAL MATCH (i)-[:HAS_SPEC]->(s:InterfaceSpec)
OPTIONAL MATCH (i)-[:DEFINED_IN]->(sec:DocSection)<-[:HAS_SECTION]-(d:Document {doc_type:"ICD"})
RETURN i.if_id, i.type, collect({spec:s.name, val:s.value, units:s.units}) AS specs,
       d.id AS icd_id, sec.sec_id AS section

2) Requirements verification status roll-up for HALO


MATCH (:Element {name:"HALO"})-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]->(x)
MATCH (r:Requirement)-[:ALLOCATED_TO]->(x)
OPTIONAL MATCH (r)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(v:Verification)
RETURN r.req_id, r.text, r.status, collect({vid:v.verif_id, method:v.method, status:v.status}) AS verifs
ORDER BY r.req_id

3) Find failure modes that threaten a given interface + their controls


MATCH (i:Interface {if_id:"IF-PPE-HALO-PWR"})-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(:InterfaceEndpoint)-[:OF_SYSTEM]->(s)
MATCH (fm:FailureMode)-[:OF]->(s)
OPTIONAL MATCH (fm)-[:CONTROLLED_BY]->(c:Control)
RETURN fm.fm_id, fm.description, fm.severity, collect({control:c.ctrl_id, desc:c.description}) AS controls

4) Generate a Requirements Verification Matrix (RVM)


MATCH (r:Requirement)-[vb:VERIFIED_BY]->(v:Verification)
OPTIONAL MATCH (v)-[:EVIDENCE_IN]->(sec:DocSection)<-[:HAS_SECTION]-(doc:Document)
RETURN r.req_id, r.text, v.verif_id, v.method, v.status, doc.id AS evidence_doc, sec.sec_id AS evidence_section
ORDER BY r.req_id

5) Budget deltas by element


MATCH (b:BudgetItem)-[:FOR]->(e:Element)
RETURN e.name, b.type, b.allocated, b.estimated, (b.allocated - b.estimated) AS margin, b.units, b.epoch
ORDER BY e.name, b.type

Practical tips

Everything is a node with a resolvable anchor: model document sections explicitly so you can trace a requirement/hazard back to the exact section that defines it.
IDs: adopt stable, human-readable IDs: ICD-PPE-HALO-001, HALO-PWR-001, FM-<SYS>-<N>, HZ-<TOPIC>-<N>, etc.
Versioning: keep rev, date, and (optionally) supersedes relationships between :Document nodes.
Granularity: store both interface endpoints and the interface object; that makes queries like “what failure modes on either side threaten this interface?” trivial.
Reuse: the same :Control can mitigate multiple :FailureModes; the same :Verification can close multiple :Control verifications if applicable.

If you want, I can turn this into a seed Cypher file that scaffolds all labels, constraints, and a working PPE↔HALO example (requirements, ICD, FMECA, hazard, ops, and budgets) so you can load it straight into Neo4j and start iterating.

List and describe 15 great technical questions that the knowledge graph could easily support

Perfect — here are 15 technical questions that your Gateway Knowledge Graph (with the document nodes, systems, subsystems, requirements, hazards, budgets, etc.) could support. Each is both useful to engineers/managers and directly answerable via the KG queries we set up.

🔎 15 Technical Questions for the Gateway Knowledge Graph

1. Interface Compliance

👉 Does HALO’s power system meet PPE’s electrical interface requirements (voltage, current, and margin)?

KG pulls :InterfaceSpec, :Requirement, and :Verification linked to PPE–HALO ICD.

2. Requirement Coverage

👉 Which HALO requirements have no verification method yet assigned?

KG returns :Requirement nodes without a [:VERIFIED_BY] relationship.

3. Cross-Element Dependencies

👉 Which Gateway Elements depend on PPE for power or data connectivity?

Follows :Interface relationships from PPE endpoints.

4. Hazard Traceability

👉 What hazards could lead to crew exposure in HALO, and what controls mitigate them?

KG traverses :Hazard → :FailureMode → :Control relationships.

5. Critical Failure Impact

👉 Which failure modes in PPE could propagate to Gateway-level loss of mission?

Uses :FailureMode nodes with severity="Catastrophic" or linked to multiple elements.

6. ConOps Alignment

👉 What procedures are invoked during a PPE thruster anomaly scenario?

KG links :ConOpsScenario to :Procedure nodes tied to PPE subsystems.

7. Verification Evidence

👉 Where (in which document and section) is the test evidence for HALO’s docking system requirement stored?

Finds :Verification linked to :Requirement, then [:EVIDENCE_IN] → :DocSection → :Document.

8. Budget Tracking

👉 What is the current mass margin for HALO, and how has it changed across revisions?

Compares :BudgetItem nodes by epoch values.

9. Interface Conflicts

👉 Are there any mismatches between the data rate required by HALO’s avionics and the data rate specified in the PPE–HALO ICD?

Cross-checks :Requirement bandwidth vs. :InterfaceSpec.

10. Document Coverage

👉 Which document sections define controls for HALO power failure modes?

Traverses :FailureMode → :Control → :Verification → :DocSection.

11. Ops Mode Dependencies

👉 Which subsystems are active during Gateway safe mode, and what is their power draw?

Joins :OpMode=Safe with :Subsystem and :BudgetItem.

12. Requirement Lineage

👉 Which Gateway program-level requirements decompose into HALO subsystem requirements?

Follows :Requirement-[:DERIVED_FROM]->:Requirement chain.

13. Redundancy Gaps

👉 Which subsystems lack documented redundancy in their design description?

Finds :System|:Subsystem without :DesignArtifact tagged as redundant/cross-strapped.

14. Verification Status Roll-Up

👉 What percentage of HALO’s requirements are fully verified, partially verified, or unverified?

Counts :Requirement nodes by verification status.

15. Hazard Closure

👉 Which hazards remain open, what failure modes cause them, and which controls are still pending verification?

Traverses :Hazard {status:"Open"} → :FailureMode → :Control → :Verification.

🚀 Why these are valuable

They mirror NASA/DoD SE practice: ICD compliance, FMEA/FMECA roll-ups, requirement traceability, hazard closure, and budgets.
They’re cross-linked — one query can pull from multiple docs (ICD + SSRD + Hazard Report + V&V).
They scale: you can run them per subsystem, per element, or Gateway-wide.

Would you like me to write out Cypher queries for all 15 questions so you can drop them into Neo4j right away, or keep it at this “requirements-style” level?

Yes

Awesome — here are drop-in Cypher queries for all 15 questions, written for the graph model we outlined (Elements/Systems/Subsystems, Document/Section anchors, Requirements, V&V, Hazards, Interfaces, Budgets, Ops). Adapt labels/prop names if yours differ.

1) Interface compliance (HALO power vs PPE ICD)


MATCH (ppe:Element {name:"PPE"}), (halo:Element {name:"HALO"})
MATCH (i:Interface {type:"Power"})-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(:InterfaceEndpoint)-[:OF_SYSTEM]->()<-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]-(ppe)
MATCH (i)-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(:InterfaceEndpoint)-[:OF_SYSTEM]->()<-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]-(halo)
OPTIONAL MATCH (i)-[:HAS_SPEC]->(vSpec:InterfaceSpec {name:"Voltage"})
OPTIONAL MATCH (i)-[:HAS_SPEC]->(pSpec:InterfaceSpec {name:"Power_kW"})
OPTIONAL MATCH (rV:Requirement {req_id:"HALO-PWR-001"})  // assume structured props
OPTIONAL MATCH (rV)-[:CITED_IN]->(sec:DocSection)<-[:HAS_SECTION]-(d:Document {doc_type:"ICD"})
RETURN i.if_id, 
       coalesce(vSpec.value, null) AS icd_voltage_Vdc,
       coalesce(pSpec.value, null) AS icd_power_kW,
       rV.voltage_V_min        AS req_voltage_min,
       rV.power_kW_min         AS req_power_min,
       d.id AS icd_doc, sec.sec_id AS icd_section,
       CASE WHEN vSpec.value >= rV.voltage_V_min AND pSpec.value >= rV.power_kW_min THEN "Meets"
            WHEN vSpec.value IS NULL OR pSpec.value IS NULL OR rV.voltage_V_min IS NULL OR rV.power_kW_min IS NULL THEN "Unknown"
            ELSE "Does NOT meet" END AS compliance;

2) HALO requirements with no verification assigned


MATCH (:Element {name:"HALO"})-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]->(x)
MATCH (r:Requirement)-[:ALLOCATED_TO]->(x)
WHERE NOT (r)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(:Verification)
RETURN r.req_id, r.text, r.level, r.status
ORDER BY r.req_id;

3) Which elements depend on PPE for power or data


MATCH (ppe:Element {name:"PPE"})
MATCH (i:Interface)-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(:InterfaceEndpoint)-[:OF_SYSTEM]->()<-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]-(ppe)
MATCH (i)-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(:InterfaceEndpoint)-[:OF_SYSTEM]->()<-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]-(e:Element)
WHERE e <> ppe
RETURN DISTINCT i.type AS interface_type, e.name AS dependent_element, i.if_id
ORDER BY interface_type, dependent_element;

4) HALO crew-exposure hazards and their controls


MATCH (:Element {name:"HALO"})-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]->(s)
MATCH (hz:Hazard)-[:CAUSED_BY]->(:FailureMode)-[:OF]->(s)
WHERE toLower(hz.statement) CONTAINS "crew" OR toLower(hz.statement) CONTAINS "exposure" OR toLower(hz.statement) CONTAINS "depress"
OPTIONAL MATCH (hz)-[:CONTROLLED_BY]->(c:Control)
RETURN hz.hz_id, hz.statement, hz.risk_class, hz.status, collect(DISTINCT {ctrl:c.ctrl_id, type:c.type, desc:c.description}) AS controls
ORDER BY hz.hz_id;

5) PPE failure modes that could propagate to Loss of Mission


MATCH (:Element {name:"PPE"})-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]->(s)
MATCH (fm:FailureMode)-[:OF]->(s)
WHERE toLower(fm.next_higher_effect) CONTAINS "loss of mission"
   OR toLower(fm.severity) IN ["catastrophic","1","class i"]
RETURN fm.fm_id, fm.description, fm.severity, fm.next_higher_effect
ORDER BY fm.severity DESC, fm.fm_id;

6) Procedures invoked for a PPE thruster anomaly scenario (ConOps link)


MATCH (sc:ConOpsScenario)
WHERE toLower(sc.name) CONTAINS "ppe" AND toLower(sc.name) CONTAINS "thruster"
MATCH (sc)-[:USES]->(p:Procedure)
OPTIONAL MATCH (p)-[:FOR_MODE]->(m:OpMode)
OPTIONAL MATCH (p)-[:HAS_STEP]->(st:Step)
RETURN sc.name AS scenario, p.proc_id, p.title, m.name AS op_mode,
       apoc.coll.sortNodes(collect(st), "idx") AS ordered_steps
ORDER BY p.proc_id;

7) Where is the test evidence for HALO’s docking requirement?


MATCH (r:Requirement)
WHERE toLower(r.text) CONTAINS "docking" AND r.req_id STARTS WITH "HALO"
MATCH (r)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(v:Verification)
OPTIONAL MATCH (v)-[:EVIDENCE_IN]->(sec:DocSection)<-[:HAS_SECTION]-(doc:Document)
RETURN r.req_id, r.text, v.verif_id, v.method, v.status, doc.doc_type AS evidence_doc_type, doc.id AS evidence_doc_id, sec.sec_id AS evidence_section
ORDER BY r.req_id, v.verif_id;

8) Mass margin for HALO and change across revisions/epochs


MATCH (b:BudgetItem {type:"Mass"})-[:FOR]->(:Element {name:"HALO"})
RETURN b.epoch, b.allocated, b.estimated, (b.allocated - b.estimated) AS margin_kg
ORDER BY b.epoch;

9) Data-rate mismatches between HALO avionics requirement and PPE–HALO ICD


// Assumes HALO data requirement is structured (e.g., r.data_mbps_min)
MATCH (i:Interface {type:"Data"})-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(:InterfaceEndpoint)-[:OF_SYSTEM]->()<-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]-(:Element {name:"PPE"})
MATCH (i)-[:USES_ENDPOINT]->(:InterfaceEndpoint)-[:OF_SYSTEM]->(haloCdh:System)<-[:HAS_SYSTEM]-(:Element {name:"HALO"})
OPTIONAL MATCH (i)-[:HAS_SPEC]->(rate:InterfaceSpec {name:"DataRate_Mbps"})
OPTIONAL MATCH (r:Requirement)-[:ALLOCATED_TO]->(haloCdh)
WHERE r.data_mbps_min IS NOT NULL
RETURN i.if_id, rate.value AS icd_rate_Mbps, r.req_id, r.data_mbps_min AS req_min_Mbps,
       CASE WHEN rate.value >= r.data_mbps_min THEN "OK" 
            WHEN rate.value IS NULL THEN "Unknown"
            ELSE "MISMATCH" END AS status;

10) Document sections that define controls for HALO power failure modes


MATCH (:Element {name:"HALO"})-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]->(s:System)
MATCH (fm:FailureMode)-[:OF]->(s)
MATCH (fm)-[:CONTROLLED_BY]->(c:Control)
OPTIONAL MATCH (c)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(v:Verification)-[:EVIDENCE_IN]->(sec:DocSection)<-[:HAS_SECTION]-(doc:Document)
WHERE toLower(s.name) CONTAINS "power"
RETURN fm.fm_id, fm.description, c.ctrl_id, c.type, doc.doc_type, doc.id AS doc_id, sec.sec_id
ORDER BY fm.fm_id, c.ctrl_id;

11) Subsystems active in Safe Mode and their power draw


MATCH (m:OpMode {name:"Safe"})
MATCH (p:Procedure)-[:FOR_MODE]->(m)
MATCH (p)-[:USES]->(ss:Subsystem)  // if you model Procedure->USES Subsystem; else join via text tag
OPTIONAL MATCH (pb:BudgetItem {type:"Power"})-[:FOR]->(ss)
RETURN ss.name AS subsystem, pb.estimated AS power_kW_est, pb.allocated AS power_kW_alloc, pb.epoch
ORDER BY coalesce(pb.estimated, pb.allocated) DESC, ss.name;

12) Program-level requirements decomposed into HALO subsystem requirements


MATCH (pr:Requirement {level:"Program"})-[:DERIVED_FROM*0..]->(sr:Requirement)
MATCH (sr)-[:ALLOCATED_TO]->(:Subsystem)<-[:HAS_SUBSYSTEM]-(:System)<-[:HAS_SYSTEM]-(:Element {name:"HALO"})
RETURN pr.req_id AS program_req, sr.req_id AS halo_req, sr.text
ORDER BY pr.req_id, halo_req;

13) Subsystems without documented redundancy in design description


MATCH (e:Element)-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]->(ss:Subsystem)
WHERE NOT (ss)-[:DESCRIBED_IN]->(:DesignArtifact {type:"Redundancy"})
  AND NOT (ss)-[:DESCRIBED_IN]->(:DesignArtifact)-[:HAS_TAG]->(:Tag {name:"redundant"})
RETURN e.name AS element, ss.name AS subsystem
ORDER BY element, subsystem;

14) Verification status roll-up (percentages) for HALO


MATCH (:Element {name:"HALO"})-[:HAS_SYSTEM|:HAS_SUBSYSTEM*0..2]->(x)
MATCH (r:Requirement)-[:ALLOCATED_TO]->(x)
WITH collect(r) AS reqs
UNWIND reqs AS r
OPTIONAL MATCH (r)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(v:Verification)
WITH r, collect(v.status) AS vstats
WITH 
  count(DISTINCT r) AS total,
  count(DISTINCT CASE WHEN size(vstats) > 0 AND all(s IN vstats WHERE s="Passed") THEN r END) AS fully,
  count(DISTINCT CASE WHEN size(vstats) > 0 AND any(s IN vstats WHERE s IN ["InWork","Planned"]) THEN r END) AS partial,
  count(DISTINCT CASE WHEN size(vstats) = 0 THEN r END) AS none
RETURN total,
       fully, round(100.0*fully/total,1) AS pct_fully,
       partial, round(100.0*partial/total,1) AS pct_partial,
       none, round(100.0*none/total,1) AS pct_none;

15) Open hazards, causal failure modes, and controls pending verification


MATCH (hz:Hazard {status:"Open"})-[:CAUSED_BY]->(fm:FailureMode)
OPTIONAL MATCH (hz)-[:CONTROLLED_BY]->(c:Control)
OPTIONAL MATCH (c)-[:VERIFIED_BY]->(v:Verification)
WITH hz, fm, c, collect(v) AS verifs
WITH hz, fm, c,
     CASE WHEN size(verifs)=0 OR any(x IN verifs WHERE x.status <> "Passed") THEN "Pending" ELSE "Closed" END AS ctrl_verif_status
RETURN hz.hz_id, hz.statement, fm.fm_id, fm.description, c.ctrl_id, ctrl_verif_status
ORDER BY hz.hz_id, fm.fm_id, c.ctrl_id;

Notes / tweaks

If your requirements don’t have structured fields (e.g., power_kW_min), you can keep the checks qualitative (report both sides without the CASE) or introduce simple numeric props during ingestion.
If you modeled Procedures differently (e.g., tied to DocSection only), swap that join accordingly.
For redundancy (Q13), tag your DesignArtifact with type:"Redundancy" or a :HAS_TAG relation.

If you want, I can bundle these into a .cypher seed file (including the constraints and example PPE↔HALO scaffolding) so you can run it in Neo4j Browser as-is.

Yes

All set. Here’s your ready-to-run Neo4j seed with schema, a PPE↔HALO scaffold, and the 15 queries as commented blocks:

Download the Cypher seed: gateway_kg_seed.cypher

How to use

Open Neo4j Browser → :play not needed; just drag-drop the file or copy/paste into a new query tab.
Run once to create the constraints, nodes, and relationships.
Copy any Q1–Q15 block (they’re at the bottom of the file) into a new tab and execute to get answers.

Want me to expand this seed with more elements (ESPRIT, Airlock, I-Hab, Logistics) and auto-generate starter requirements/ICD stubs for each?

Yes

Done. I generated an expanded Neo4j seed that adds ESPRIT, Airlock, I-Hab, and Logistics with ICD stubs, initial requirements, verification placeholders, hazards/controls, ops, and budgets. It keeps the PPE↔HALO scaffold and follows the same schema so your existing 15 queries still work.

Download the extended Cypher seed: gateway_kg_seed_extended.cypher

Import tips

In Neo4j Browser, open the file and run it once to load the extended baseline.
Then run the Q1–Q15 queries from the previous seed (they’re compatible).
When you’re ready, I can add: FMECA tables per subsystem, more structured requirement fields, or auto-generate ICD spec rows (InterfaceSpec) from a CSV.

https://chatgpt.com/c/68ae45cc-fddc-8329-9590-685e4fe235bb

From <https://chatgpt.com/> ChatGPT 5

Google Gemini 2.5 Pro

List in order of importance to an engineering knowledge graph for NASA Gateway Program: concept of operations, interface control documents, operations manuals, and other documents that I am forgetting. The intent is to support systems analysis and scenario analysis and response.

For an engineering knowledge graph supporting systems and scenario analysis for the NASA Gateway Program, the document priority should be based on capturing the system's connections, intended behavior, and potential failures.

Here is the prioritized list of documents, from most to least critical, for this specific purpose.

1. Interface Control Documents (ICDs)

Why it's most important: For a systems analysis knowledge graph, the interfaces are the most critical element. They are the pathways through which all interactions—and failures—propagate. ICDs define the precise mechanical, electrical, data, thermal, and fluidic connections between modules, visiting vehicles, and payloads.

Knowledge Graph Value: ICDs directly create the most valuable relationships (edges) between system components (nodes). You can model dependencies like "Module A provides 1kW of power to Payload B via Connector J5" or "Vehicle C sends telemetry data to the HALO module using the 1553B data bus." This structure is the backbone for any scenario analysis.

2. Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA/FMEA) & Hazard Reports (HRs)

Why it's second: These documents are the primary source for scenario analysis and response. They systematically identify what can go wrong, the consequences of those failures, and the existing mitigations.

Knowledge Graph Value: This data populates the graph with potential off-nominal events. You can create relationships like "Failure of Pump X causes Loss of Cooling to Rack 4" which is linked to "Hazard Y: Crew Exposure to High Temperature." This allows the graph to answer questions like, "What are all the potential downstream effects of this specific component failing?"

3. Concept of Operations (ConOps)

Why it's third: The ConOps provides the high-level context and intent for the entire system. It describes the "story" of the mission—defining mission phases, operational states, and major activities (e.g., docking, undocking, crewed habitation, contingency operations).

Knowledge Graph Value: The ConOps provides the framework for structuring scenarios. An analysis of a power failure, for example, has very different implications during a crewed spacewalk versus an uncrewed, dormant period. The ConOps defines these states and the functional objectives within them.

4. Operations Manuals & Procedures

Why it's fourth: These documents define the system's dynamic behavior and the prescribed responses to events. They contain the step-by-step actions for nominal, off-nominal, and emergency situations.

Knowledge Graph Value: Procedures can be modeled as sequences of actions that change the state of system components. For scenario response, you can query the graph with a failure (from the FMEA) and have it return the corresponding emergency procedure, showing which systems and commands are involved in the recovery.

5. System and Subsystem Requirements Documents

Why it's fifth: Requirements provide the fundamental "why" behind the design. They specify what the system must be able to do (e.g., "The Power Management System shall provide 120V DC power to all internal payload racks").

Knowledge Graph Value: Requirements allow for powerful traceability analysis. By linking requirements to components and interfaces, you can analyze the impact of a change or failure. For example, "If this power converter fails, which system requirements can no longer be met?"

6. Verification and Validation (V&V) Documents

Why it's sixth: V&V documents (often in a matrix called a VCRM - Verification Cross-Reference Matrix) provide the evidence that the requirements have been met. They link each requirement to a specific test, analysis, or inspection.

Knowledge Graph Value: This adds a layer of confidence and "ground truth" to the model. It allows the graph to represent not just what the system is supposed to do, but what it has been proven to do. This is crucial for assessing the reliability of a proposed response in a given scenario.

7. Design and Description Documents (D&Ds) & Schematics

Why it's seventh: These documents contain the detailed "as-designed" implementation of the hardware and software. They include block diagrams, circuit schematics, and detailed descriptions of component functions.

Knowledge Graph Value: While extremely valuable, their information is often more granular than needed for initial system-level analysis. The key connectivity information is captured more directly in the ICDs. However, for a deep-dive investigation into a specific component's failure mechanism, this data is indispensable.

8. System Budgets and Resource Tracking

Why it's eighth: These documents track critical, finite system resources like mass, power, and data bandwidth.

Knowledge Graph Value: These are essential for system-level "what-if" analysis. For example, "What is the impact on our total power margin if we activate this science instrument during a docking operation?" While vital for systems engineering, they are slightly less central to failure response scenarios than FMEAs or procedures. 🚀

Can you generate mock documents with complete content for use in a prototype knowledge graph?

Of course. Here are four mock documents with complete, internally consistent content designed for a prototype knowledge graph. The scenario focuses on a single critical function: the HALO module providing power to a docked Orion spacecraft.

These documents are simplified for clarity but structured to be realistic for KG ingestion.

1. Interface Control Document (ICD)

Document ID: GWP-ICD-HALO-ORION-002 Title: Interface Control Document for HALO to Orion MPCV Power Transfer Revision: B Date: 2025-08-26

1.0 Scope This document defines the electrical power interface between the Gateway Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) for providing "shore power" to Orion while docked.

2.0 Interface Description Power is transferred from a single HALO Main Power Bus via a dedicated Remote Power Control Module (RPCM) to the Orion Umbilical Interface.

Providing Element: HALO Module
Receiving Element: Orion MPCV
Interface Point: Docking System Umbilical Assembly (DSUA)

3.0 Electrical Interface Characteristics The following table details the characteristics of the power interface provided at the DSUA connector HALO_P7.

Parameter	Specification	Notes
Interface ID	`HALO_PWR_TO_ORION_01`	Primary power feed
Voltage	$120 VDC \pm 4%$	Referenced to HALO chassis ground
Max Continuous Current	$12.5 A$
Max Peak Current	$15.0 A for 100 ms$
Source Impedance	$< 0.5 Ω$
Control Device	HALO RPCM `RPCM_H-14`

4.0 Connector and Pinout The interface is provided via the HALO_P7 connector on the HALO side of the DSUA.

Connector HALO_P7 Pin Assignment:

Pin	Signal Name	Description
1	`PWR_120V_POS`	+120 VDC Power Feed
2	`PWR_120V_RTN`	120 VDC Power Return
3	`CHASSIS_GND`	Chassis Ground Connection
4	`NO_CONNECT`	Not Used

2. Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA)

Document ID: HALO-FMECA-EPS-045 Title: FMECA for Electrical Power System (EPS) - RPCM Bank 3 Revision: A Date: 2025-07-12

System: HALO Electrical Power System Subsystem: Power Distribution Unit 2 (PDU-2) Item under Analysis: RPCM_H-14 (Remote Power Control Module)

Function	Failure Mode	Potential Cause(s)	Local Effect	System / End Effect	Mitigation / Response
Provide controlled 120 VDC power to the Orion Umbilical Interface `HALO_PWR_TO_ORION_01`	Fails to Close (Fails Open)	Relay coil failure; Internal logic fault; Upstream command failure	No voltage is present at connector `HALO_P7`	Loss of shore power to docked Orion. Orion must revert to internal battery/solar power. Mission duration constrained. Potential for critical systems shutdown on Orion if its internal power fails.	Procedural: Crew can attempt to cycle RPCM via console. If unsuccessful, re-route power through redundant interface (if available). Fault Annunciation: `RPCM_H-14_STATUS_ERR` caution and warning on crew displays.
	Fails to Open (Fails Closed)	Welded relay contacts	Power cannot be removed from interface `HALO_PWR_TO_ORION_01` via nominal command.	Inability to safe power interface. Potential hazard during undocking. Overcurrent condition on Orion could not be isolated by HALO.	Mitigation: Upstream and downstream circuit breakers can be opened to isolate the fault. Response: Requires immediate crew intervention per emergency procedure `GWP-EMER-2405`.

3. Operations Procedure

Document ID: GWP-OPS-2101 Title: Orion Docked Power Activation Revision: C Date: 2025-06-18

1.0 Objective To safely configure and activate the transfer of 120 VDC power from the HALO module to a docked Orion spacecraft.

2.0 Prerequisites

Orion MPCV is hard-docked to HALO at Docking Port 1.
Umbilical connection is confirmed (UMBILICAL_STATUS telemetry is CONNECTED).
HALO Main Bus A voltage is nominal ( $118 - 122 VDC$ ).

3.0 Procedure Steps

VERIFY on EPS-STATUS-1 display that RPCM_H-14 status is OPEN and READY.
COMMAND on EPS-CONTROL-3 display: RPCM_H-14 -> CLOSE.
VERIFY RPCM_H-14 status telemetry changes to CLOSED within 5 seconds.
- If status remains OPEN, go to Off-Nominal Procedure GWP-OFFNOM-5022.
VERIFY on EPS-STATUS-1 display that HALO_PWR_TO_ORION_01 Voltage is in the range of $118 - 122 VDC$ .
VERIFY on EPS-STATUS-1 display that HALO_PWR_TO_ORION_01 Current is $> 0.5 A$ and $< 12.5 A$ .
- If current is outside this range, immediately COMMAND RPCM_H-14 -> OPEN and report anomaly to Mission Control.
CONFIRM with Orion crew that they are receiving shore power.
LOG procedure GWP-OPS-2101 as complete.

4. System Requirements Document

Document ID: GWP-SYS-REQ-088 Title: Level II System Requirements - HALO Module Revision: D Date: 2025-02-11

3.4 Electrical Power System Requirements

Req. ID	Requirement Statement	Rationale	Parent Req.	Verification Method
HALO-REQ-PWR-004	The HALO module shall provide at least 1.5 kW of continuous 120 VDC power to a docked Orion MPCV through the docking umbilical.	To support Orion crewed missions longer than 14 days by preserving Orion's internal consumables and battery life while it is part of the Gateway stack.	GWP-L1-REQ-031	Test. Power transfer shall be demonstrated during System Integration Testing by connecting a representative load and measuring voltage and current for a 24-hour period.
HALO-REQ-PWR-005	The power feed to Orion shall be isolatable via at least two independent verifiable commands.	To ensure the ability to safe the interface in the event of a fault in the primary control device (e.g., a welded relay) or an emergency on the receiving vehicle.	GWP-L1-REQ-035	Demonstration. During verification testing, successful isolation of power will be demonstrated using both the primary RPCM and its upstream Main Bus Breaker.

How These Documents Connect in a Knowledge Graph

A knowledge graph would ingest these documents and automatically create connections:

The Procedure GWP-OPS-2101 would be linked to the hardware it commands, RPCM_H-14.
The ICD GWP-ICD-HALO-ORION-002 would define the relationship between HALO and Orion through the HALO_PWR_TO_ORION_01 interface, specifying its voltage and current properties.
The FMECA HALO-FMECA-EPS-045 would link the failure mode "Fails to Close" directly to the hardware RPCM_H-14 and to the system effect "Loss of shore power to docked Orion."
The Requirement HALO-REQ-PWR-004 would be the parent node that justifies the existence of the interface and its power specification, linking the "why" to the "what."

By querying this graph, you could ask complex questions like: "What procedures are affected if RPCM_H-14 fails, and which system requirements would be violated?" The graph could then traverse these connections to give you a complete answer.

From <https://gemini.google.com/app/> Google Gemini 2.5 Pro