
US Navy Nuclear Power School Study Materials - jonwachob91
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/NNPTC/Power-School/StudyMaterial/
======
nwatson
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
local university recruiter accompanied me both times. Nobody told me much what
the "naval nuclear reactor program manager" work involved because they really
didn't know and couldn't say. I finally had a chance in DC to talk to someone
who actually did the work, and the fit didn't seem quite right at the time --
I'd be traveling a lot to GE, Westinghouse, etc., and reviewing designs,
change management, etc., -- not a lot of original work. The few days before
the meeting I'd been wavering every hour or so. Had they caught me a few
minutes before or after, who knows, I might have decided differently. I felt
sorry for the recruiter.

Of course, I was naïve at the time -- nobody, especially in nuclear, starts
off with original work.

I count that as one of the four or five big forks in my own "destiny".

edit: the naïve part.

~~~
devoply
How did your life work out in the end?

~~~
nwatson
Thanks for asking, and I'm not yet at "the end"!

I'll say the first big fork was deciding to forego free EE education at
Universidade de Brasília and living a Brazilian life in favor of going to my
family's US stomping grounds in Arizona. There were many student strikes in
Brazil at the time, I didn't want to spend 8 years on a BSE, and was sure all
my family would end up in the US eventually anyway. I didn't want to be so far
away.

The second fork was not entering the navy nuclear program.

The next was foundering in grad school with an NSF Fellowship. I'd say
social/personal issues got in the way, and though I'd try to blame grad school
context, I'd lost my creative drive. My oldest brother had an "in" to early
access to the Apple Newton at the time so I headed to Silicon Valley, and we
tried to build something on the platform. After several months and seeing the
idea/platform wouldn't pan out for our use case, I started working at SV
startups.

I did the SV startup thing for 19 years, had some good experiences. My wife
wanted to move ... so the next big fork was moving to North Carolina. I
continued SV work (almost 3 years at one really really really crappy podunk
startup), and recently moved on to a former-startup-division-in-a-large-
enterprise-security-company. My current team is awesome and I learn something
new every day.

Those are the big professional forks so far ... as for professional future, I
don't know. I've got a couple of ideas I'd like to pursue some time. But then
there's time with my daughter, relative ease of a near-SV (?) salary in NC,
etc.

In all, I can't complain.

------
analognoise
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?

~~~
Bud
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.

~~~
analognoise
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/](https://www.wikipedia.org/)

------
rdtsc
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?

~~~
ayb
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 operated (i.e. the designs and how the
cooling, electronics, power generation, etc. worked)

I would imagine there would be a lot of overall similarities in core
principles and operations, but some specific systems would work differently
being on land and likely generating a lot more power + having other
requirements for discharges and cooling etc, vs. a seagoing vessel.

~~~
normaljoe
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.

~~~
ayb
That's so interesting re: the number of startups and shutdowns. Makes perfect
sense given the mission of "generating power" vs. getting somewhere or "poking
holes in the ocean".

------
jeff487
these are actually Department of Energy study materials, not the actual Naval
Reactors training materials used in Naval Nuclear Power School.

~~~
tbihl
Both of those are true, but it's worth noting that actual training manuals are
also DoE. Naval Reactors occupies a unique space, due to a couple things:

1\. the Navy is the only service that didn't get their nuclear 'toys' taken
away from them for being irresponsible.

2\. Rickover was an incredible pain in the ass to everyone who got in his way
for the better part of four decades.

------
labrador
These are not the materials we studied at Naval Nuclear Power School in the
80's, which were considerably greater in depth (6 mo course)

~~~
jonwachob91
I'm fairly certain this material was designed more as a prep-work for
completion prior to A-School.

------
ChefDenominator
This is not the material used in the enlisted program when I went through it.

I specifically recall reading about quarks and spin in the physics text book
because they were not in the notes or TGOs even though they influence decay.
Quarks are not in the linked page pdfs.

------
JumpCrisscross
What are the pre-requisite knowledge requirements?

~~~
lithos
Usually something above 90 on the ASVAB, with exceptions for people who score
80s but take a special math and physics test.

ASVAB grading isn't a fixed scoring system. If you score s 90 it means you
beat 90% of the people who took the test. Which means that 99 is the max
score. The question pool is also massive usually starting at Jr High
difficulty questions ramping up to college and down to kindergarten depending
on which questions you get right. Testing Math/science/reading for your
primary grade with secondary grades for things like mechanics, table reading,
and similar which can be used to qualify you for some other jobs or similar.

\-----

Nukes are great for employers that know to target them when they get out. The
whole program could be considered a trial by fire. Training starts with 3-4
years of college shoved into a year and a half. Actual work is a constant
fight between being undermanned, leadership, continuous training/testing,
responsibilities above their rank and red tape.

Got out after 6 years as a nuke.

~~~
loblollyboy
ASVAB is for enlisted - you don't take that if you are going officer (NUPOC)
for NUPOC you need like a 3-3.5 in some kind of stem thing and maybe other
stuff like recommendations ... and you need to pass an interview too I believe
with an admiral.

------
callesgg
Leads to many of 404 errors.

------
tzury
All the PDF within the page:

    
    
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Math/math_assign.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/physics_assign.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Radiation/rf_assign.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Chemistry/chem_assign.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Math/math_quest.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/physics_quest.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Radiation/rf_quest.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Chemistry/chem_quest.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Math/math_sol.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/physics_sol.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Radiation/rf_sol.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Chemistry/chem_sol.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Math/doe_math_v1.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/doe_phys.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Radiation/doe_radiological_training.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Chemistry/doe_chemistry_v1.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Math/doe_math_v2.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/doe_phys_nuc.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Radiation/doe_reactor_theory_v1.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Electrical%20Eng/ee_assign.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Thermo/thermo_assign.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/RD/rd_assign.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Electrical%20Eng/ee_quest.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Thermo/thermo_quest.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/RD/rd_quest.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Electrical%20Eng/ee_sol.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Thermo/thermo_sol.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/RD/rd_sol.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Electrical%20Eng/applied_ee_v1.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Thermo/doe_htff_v1.pdf
        http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/RD/doe_rx_theory_v2.pdf

------
metaphor
Considering how unsurprisingly shallow the material is, I'm guessing this is
enlisted training material...you know, the type that's quickly forgotten
shortly after A school.

~~~
CalChris
No. After A school, you will still have to qualify on the boat.

~~~
labrador
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.

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

~~~
brandmeyer
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.

