Live data from Hacker News

US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

navsea.navy.mil

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

#41
post #27

I considered the nuclear navy program in 1986/1987 as a college junior, looked like an interesting opportunity. There were 3 tracks (not the official terms): + nuclear operator on a ship or submarine + nuclear school instructor + naval nuclear reactor program manager I qualified for the "naval nuclear reactor program manager" and went to San Diego to tour a nuclear submarine, then a few months later flew to DC. The l…

Your year was the same time when I was courted by recruiters for the USN Nuclear Program. They treated me well and offered a bonus, but I went Army instead. God, how I imagine how things would've turned out had I chosen that path.

Re: US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

#42
post #15

This raises an interesting question - what kinds of textbooks are out there already, produced by the government/military, and available for use? Could they be expanded/adapted, published for free, and put downward pressure on the (ludicrous) price of textbooks in the US?

This makes a couple assumptions: 1) There's not much legitimate value in the textbooks we have now. Those who did that work don't really deserve to make money from it, and their labor would be easy to replace. 2) It'd be free or essentially free to "expand and adapt" military documents and make them into textbooks that are accurate, current, and suitable for educating non-military folks.

1) How did you get from "downward pressure" to "not much legitimate value"? The original statement was nuanced enough to cover this and definitely didn't make that assumption.

2) You're right, no such project has ever existed; I'd imagine it would be like an encyclopedia, full of people who donate their time to edit page about various subjects. Such a project could never stay current, definitely isn't suitable for education, and almost certainly will never surpass the accuracy or magnitude of my Microsoft Encarta CDs. [0]

[0] https://www.wikipedia.org/

Re: US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

#43
post #27

I considered the nuclear navy program in 1986/1987 as a college junior, looked like an interesting opportunity. There were 3 tracks (not the official terms): + nuclear operator on a ship or submarine + nuclear school instructor + naval nuclear reactor program manager I qualified for the "naval nuclear reactor program manager" and went to San Diego to tour a nuclear submarine, then a few months later flew to DC. The l…

I was an enlisted nuke before going to college and getting an engineering degree. Even in the early '00s, my impression of the nuclear program manager role was very similar to yours, in that the naval officers are primarily providing oversight rather than design engineering work. However, there is still quite a bit of original work going on in the nuclear Navy. In the late 80's, you might have been involved in the Seawolf class design.

Each new ship class has been getting a new reactor plant design. The changes are very much evolutionary from one generation to the next, but it all adds up.

Re: US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

#44
post #13

In general how much does being in the Navy and working on Nuclear Powered vessels help with getting a job as a civilian Nuclear Engineer say at a power plant? I would imagine a full Engineering degree would be required, or is there some fast tracking option specifically geared for ex-Navy operators?

I'm a veteran Nuke that didn't go into the nuclear engineering field. However, I did frequently cross paths and classes with another Navy nuke veteran who did take that path. Basically, enlisted nuke -> commercial nuclear engineering technician. As an engineering tech, there was certainly good money to be made. But, he found that there was a pretty hard ceiling on how far he could go without an engineering degree. So, he was putting himself through college full-time, while feeding a family of four on student loans (!).

What the recruiters don't tell you, is that your course work will only be accepted for credit by colleges that are not ABET-accredited. The two years of nuke school can count as nearly all of an associate's degree in nuclear engineering technology, but almost none in nuclear engineering. I had to start from scratch when I got my degree (in Mechanical Engineering) - I didn't even get PE credit! But on the flip side, because I had a working knowledge of thermo/mechanical/electrical systems as a field tech, I found that my engineering courses were much more comprehensible. I was hungry for the detailed theory at that point, and didn't mind if the particular practice problems were contrived.

Re: US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

#45
post #33
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend at work is a former Navy Nuke and this came up the other day. He said that he felt a little misled coming out of the service since only a small fraction of his credits were eligible to transfer to a NucE degree program, due to it not being "calculus based". (He is a EE now.) It sounds like one could get into a NucE Tech position fairly readily though.

Hard to imagine a non-calculus based nuclear engineering program.

As others have said, its a nuclear engineering technology education (as an enlistee, anyway). We did use rudimentary calculus, in the form of graphical methods. Given a strip-chart of x(t), and some nonlinear ODE y' = f(x), the student is expected to be able to draw a reasonable approximation of y(t). You get quite a bit of practice with specific ODE's of interest to the power plant, too.

Re: US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

#46
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nuke track is: After A school (Electrician, Electronic, or Mechanical) you go to Naval Nuclear Power School. From there you go to land-based prototype training on an actual reactor. From there you go to a boat to try to qualify.

I stand corrected: the type that's quickly forgotten after qualifying on a boat .

So. You know those whiteboard interviews that software engineers love to gripe about? In software engineering, you only have to take those once before you're hired, and then you can start forgetting them.

In the Navy, you take those continuously, and they are somewhat more extensive. You have them at the end of your practical training phase on land, you have them at every individual job you qualify for on the ship, Naval Reactors comes and gives them to the entire crew every year, and so on. In my six year tour, I must have gone through at least 150 oral interviews of one kind or another.

On top of the constant interviewing, there's also continuous written exams, and various engineering casualty drills (eg, model that something breaks, and observe the crew respond to the failure).

If you're lucky enough to get stationed on a 17-year old boat, then you get to constantly exercise the fundamentals, too. As various pieces of equipment fail in new and novel ways, the troubleshooting process drives you to constantly construct, support, and/or refute hypothesis as to why it broke and just what must be done to fix it.

Re: US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

#47
post #19
post #13

In general how much does being in the Navy and working on Nuclear Powered vessels help with getting a job as a civilian Nuclear Engineer say at a power plant? I would imagine a full Engineering degree would be required, or is there some fast tracking option specifically geared for ex-Navy operators?

ex Navy Submariner here. I know quite a few folks that got out (in the 2005-2010 range) and took jobs in the nuclear field. Some had degrees, some didn't. The Navy uses Pressurized Water reactors which seem to be a fairly common design in commercial use as well (according to Wikipedia, anyway). Which means a lot of how things work would be similar, and you'd just have to learn the specific systems for how that plant…

ex Reactor Operator from the mid 90s to early 2000s as well (enlisted).

One of the things that was apparent is purpose. A commercial reactor is a profit making device whereas a Naval reactor is part of a war machine. In the former you end up with complexity designed to save cost, where the later favors simplicity and extra cost to ensure stability. That is not to say commercial is unsafe, but the motive behind design is different and hence leads to different results and design criteria.

From what I can tell, I haven't worked a commercial reactor but commercial reactors are toys in comparison to their Naval counter parts. Going back to your land based vs sea based comparison. Refueling a land based reactor is trivial compared to cutting into a hull that needs to sustain high pressure underwater. This requires extra design in poison placement and fuel placement to achieve a longer life cycle measured in decades not years. The material barely touches on this and no where near the level of detail you get in the full NNPP schooling.

Commercial plants are very well aware of the training and experience that Naval operators get. I have many friends that went commercial. In the commercial world you don't shutdown or startup a reactor very often and hence you have specialists to handle that task. In the Naval world you do this every time you pull into a port. A Naval operator with 6 years experience has most likely done a few hundred cycles compared to a civilian at the same number of years only doing startups measured in the tens. So order of magnitude difference.

Startup of a reactor is one of the most difficult controlled chaos events in which you calculate expectations, move rods, and monitor activity to make sure everything is safe. A quick study of the neutron life cycle illustrates the simple fact that you don't know the state of the reactor in current state, but only in what it might be in future state. So you guide future state with understanding of current state and what might influence that state. You have to understand the Xeon poison over the last hours of operation and when that is going to decay among other things. It's not rocket science but it does require an attention to detail.

In full disclosure my first 10 minutes on a live reactor resulted in a mental breakdown. I knew all of the formulas and what I was suppose to do, but at the first time I had to move the rods I just brain farted out of nervousness. I was not going to cause a problem or accident, but I could not flatly state what was going to happen in 10 hours if I moved the rods. After 6 years on my first in fleet real reactor I could tell you where the rods would be within a tenth of an inch 120 hours later. This is why Naval operators get jobs. They learn to become one with their reactor. This is a good thing we want people that understand what they are doing.

Re: US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

#48
post #33
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend at work is a former Navy Nuke and this came up the other day. He said that he felt a little misled coming out of the service since only a small fraction of his credits were eligible to transfer to a NucE degree program, due to it not being "calculus based". (He is a EE now.) It sounds like one could get into a NucE Tech position fairly readily though.

Hard to imagine a non-calculus based nuclear engineering program.

As others have stated calculus is not needed in operations.

I felt that my calculus training was subpar to my high school education. At the same time theory on neutron life cycle and other aspects of a reactor are more important. If I can tell you what is going to happen to the reactor in next 100+ hours then I don't need to fully understand the engineering that got us here. The basic core material here get's us close, not close enough to get to mastery.

I learned advanced Physics using Algebra and then supplemented that with Calculus. Nothing that I learned in Algebra based Physics was undone by Calculus only augmented. I was pretty good at Physics when I was 17 and got better when I was 18 understanding Calculus.

These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Re: US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

#49
post #13

In general how much does being in the Navy and working on Nuclear Powered vessels help with getting a job as a civilian Nuclear Engineer say at a power plant? I would imagine a full Engineering degree would be required, or is there some fast tracking option specifically geared for ex-Navy operators?

At least in the 80's when I was in, it helped a lot. Many civilian nuke operators trained in the Navy. I have two shipmates (enlisted men) who went into operations at civilian plants. I found I like programming better and thought after 3 mile island that nuclear didn't have a bright future. We may have come full circle with global warming and the need to produce less carbon.

As a former operator in the mid to late 90s I was forced to study TMI. I am pretty sure every operator today has done the same study.

There are several lessons learned there but in reality it is really a case for how to do things going forward. I seriously doubt those mistakes will happen again.

Re: US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials

#50
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess when you are in a SSBN on patrol, you have plenty of time for study!

It depends. If we were short-handed, we did 6 hours on, 6 off, which didn't allow much extra time for study. Edit: Submarine

Been there done that. :)

At the same time I have been on 6 off 18. Oh those where great days.

Time in the military is not a constant. It completely depends on the situation and patrol you on. I did complete an economics class in 3 hours with bad grades only because I signed up for it before realizing I was going to be on one of those 6 on 6 off events.

Post reply on HN