What do you think of the submarine systems that were designed for you to interact with? Context - I have been thinking recently about submarines and wondering how crew size could be reduced through automation. (I am aware that a lot of work went into this on the Independence class ships, but my working assumption is that this was let down by poor structuring of the design team, rather than that automation is a fundamentally bad idea)
Did you have to manage boredom when you were on-shift but did not have much to do? Or is there plenty to do? Or are you allowed to study when there is not much in the way of active responsibilities?
My experience is from the Vietnam era and doesn't apply today. I was drafted mid-way through an EE program when I got behind in units. Virtually all of us had similar backgrounds. The Navy had a knack for teaching nuclear physics & math to bright people with a high school education.
The S5W plant that I operated had virtually no automation. Just safety interlocks and a few automatic shutdowns. Everything was analog. The electrical controls used mag-amps: dumb and inefficient, but reliable as hell. Safety was achieved by detailed operating procedures and highly trained crews. We studied and drilled constantly. Most over-qualified group of people I've known.
There's no way that I could describe what it was like at sea in a few lines here. It might make for an interesting HN thread as there are other nuc's here. :-)
You might enjoy Destin Sandlin's recent series of videos made on board a nuclear submarine: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHf9jaFs8XWoGULb2HQR...
I would very much like to know your take on why the Navy has this knack. I'd like to research what it takes to reproduce that knack by other organizations, in other fields of endeavor.
When you say "bright people", how does an ASVAB VE+AR+MK+MC=252 broadly approximate to percentile?
I'm also curious how the Navy selects for people who can apply that brightness over sustained periods of time.
I think the obvious answer is that they have to. The Navy has a lot of technology that needs maintenance at sea. Problem diagnosis requires understanding. We didn't rely on black box replacement.
I had nearly two years of engineering math when I was drafted and joined the Navy. The Navy skipped all of the derivations and went straight to the concepts of limits, derivatives, and integrals. Even some differential equations that describe reactor dynamics. Calculations were limited to algebra. Testing focused on calculus concepts rather than numerical answers.
This produced technicians with the ability to understand how the power plant worked but without the formal math and physics need for power plant design.
The only thing I can offer about how the Navy selects people is that it presents the various training programs early, starting with the recruiters. Certain programs are presented as being most difficult and are described in glowing terms. The challenge was definitely an attraction for me.
Maybe most interesting for us in this forum many military schools still includes lots and lots of physical training. I guess that is a huge advantage they have.
Some other points:
- Military organizations do have some options that are out of reach for civilian schools today. Knowing you can risk
- humiliation in front of peers (20 something years ago I once forgot to close the window on our room before service and had to run in to fix it while 36 other guys "enjoyed some extra time for pushups". I still remember it.),
- a permanent record for sleeping or otherwise not paying attention,
- a fine and a night behind bars for not being sober or for not behaving
- or being thrown out
sets a standard.
- Also I guess it also becomes obvious during training that failure to learn the required skills might easily cost you and others their lives.
From what I’ve seen, this is still true.
I believe the Alfa class submarines went this exact route. According to Sutton it had a crew complement of 32: http://www.hisutton.com/Alfa_Class_Submarine.html
Much more modern plans along similar design thinking is the SHELF reactor. It is designed to operates in an underwater, sealed capsule that is monitored and controlled remotely. Source: https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/smr-status-sep-2012.pdf
One thing I noticed at the top of the article was that they used the steam as a source of fresh water as well, did subs do this too, when you worked on them?
Worth noting that even in the vid, you have crew members of senior rank watching on as they have never seen it done before, which indicates how uncommon it's usage is.
Thankfully, we never had to use oxygen candles. Candles are effective only in a small closed space. That would have been a serious emergency.
Glad to hear you didn't have a situation to use one and does seem a very rare situation, but neat that there is a solid backup.
I've always regretted not going to Antarctica, but this article makes me think that I dodged a bullet. This plant was a maintenance nightmare. Plus, operating a reactor with a mix of personnel sounds bad. We certainly had our personnel issues on subs, but at least all of us in Engineering had the shared experiences of nuclear power school, prototype training, and sub qualification.