SpaceX starts in-house turbine blade manufacturing to boost gas-powered generator output for Elon's AI data centers — new manufacturing strategy cuts generator delays by 18 months

News
By
Published

Fine, I’ll do it myself.

the blades on the front fan of a jet engine
(Image credit: Javier Vermaas/Unsplash)

Electricity supply in the U.S. is a limiting factor preventing AI data centers from coming online as quickly as possible. Because of this, many projects are turning to portable natural gas turbine generators to get the electricity they need and bypass long wait times to connect to the grid. This has driven demand for turbines, so Elon Musk said on X that SpaceX will bring turbine blade and vane casting in-house.

Musk was one of the first to deploy “portable” power generators to power a data center, allowing him to bring the Colossus data center in Memphis, Tennessee, online in record time. Note that these mobile generators aren’t small devices — they’re massive units about the size of one trailer and may also include another trailer or two of other necessary parts and accessories to run it (not including the tank needed for its fuel). OpenAI followed suit a few months later, announcing it will deploy turbines at the first Stargate data center to deliver additional power.

This sudden influx of demand has led to jet engine shortages for data center operators. Beyond the fact that engine manufacturers weren’t prepared for the AI boom, commercial aviation has already been suffering from its own shortages due to supply chain and engine design issues even before data center developers started buying up turbines.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

Turbine blade and vane manufacturing is one of the biggest bottlenecks in jet engine production right now. The blades used in these engines are difficult to build, with one batch often requiring 60 to 90 weeks to produce from start to finish. That’s because these are specialized parts that are subjected to extreme forces and temperatures, especially in the core of the engine. Even if the engines that these blades will end up on are bolted to the ground or strapped to a trailer instead of hanging under the wing of an airliner, manufacturing them still requires the same level of care and precision.

The birth of a turbine blade | Safran - YouTube The birth of a turbine blade | Safran - YouTube
Watch On

Because of this, it seems that Musk wants to take things into his own hands by making SpaceX manufacture its own turbine blades. He says this move could cut deliveries by 18 months, allowing xAI to get brand-new turbine generators much faster instead of waiting behind a long queue expected to stretch into 2030.

SpaceX and Tesla aren’t abandoning solar power, but Musk says that “natural gas will still be needed to supplement and bootstrap solar for several years.” Because of this, it seems that he’s willing to invest in parts of turbine manufacturing as demand for turbine generators for data centers increases in the coming years. He has even reportedly quietly bought a portable gas and diesel turbine fleet for around a billion dollars, possibly to take advantage of this boom.

It’s unclear how Elon Musk intends to make turbine blades and vanes, especially given how complicated the process is. Nevertheless, he’s no stranger to tackling “impossible” problems, especially given his track record with Tesla and SpaceX.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Jowi Morales
Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

33 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Zaranthos
    He's already leasing AI data center capacity to the competition, maybe he'll end up leasing power generation capacity to the competition as well. SMR nuclear isn't likely to happen fast enough for current expansion plans and even though chip production is a current bottleneck power generation is likely a more widespread problem near term.
    Reply
  • LordVile
    Zaranthos said:
    He's already leasing AI data center capacity to the competition, maybe he'll end up leasing power generation capacity to the competition as well. SMR nuclear isn't likely to happen fast enough for current expansion plans and even though chip production is a current bottleneck power generation is likely a more widespread problem near term.
    Issue is no one will want to lease it when noome can turn a profit off of it and the small gas turbines are massively inefficient and cost more than other methods like solar and wind which can be scaled at lesser cost.

    They’re leasing it out to Google and Anthropic neither of whom are making a profit on their output from it. When the market wises up to the fact most of the AI companies will never see a profit and the bubble pops why would anyone lease costly compute that they can’t profit off of?
    Reply
  • boiling_frog
    If they worked instead on improving renewables there might actually be something worthwhile to show for all this madness after the AI bubble bursts
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Maybe next time they'll get permits before flipping the On switch.
    Reply
  • Zaranthos
    LordVile said:
    Issue is no one will want to lease it when noome can turn a profit off of it and the small gas turbines are massively inefficient and cost more than other methods like solar and wind which can be scaled at lesser cost.

    They’re leasing it out to Google and Anthropic neither of whom are making a profit on their output from it. When the market wises up to the fact most of the AI companies will never see a profit and the bubble pops why would anyone lease costly compute that they can’t profit off of?

    We used to burn off most natural gas as a waste product that just impeded petroleum production before we eventually built the infrastructure (mostly pipelines) to capture and use if (electricity, heating, hot water, cooking). We still flare (burn off) vast amounts (less in the USA than anywhere else) of global natural gas mostly due to lack of infrastructure (pipelines) or storage (LNG). Natural gas is far more environmentally friendly than wind or solar and will remain so until that is no longer the case. Even then lifecycle assessments that calculate the entire carbon footprint inputs for deployment and maintain of wind and solar may still not vindicate them as clean energy sources, especially when considering recycling or disposal costs along with impact on the environment. Wind and solar is a green energy myth unless you ignore all that.

    Guess what other industries and advancements used to be wildly unprofitable money pits before they were developed and advanced enough to become profitable? The commercial Internet, the electric power grid, automobiles, commercial aviation, personal computers, and railroads to name a few. Don't be so naive in thinking AI is a wasted venture when it has already begun to show enormous potential. Unless you think all those other advancements are worthless as well. There were winners and losers in all those things as well yet they've all helped propel humanity to new levels of success and prosperity.
    Reply
  • LordVile
    Zaranthos said:
    We used to burn off most natural gas as a waste product that just impeded petroleum production before we eventually built the infrastructure (mostly pipelines) to capture and use if (electricity, heating, hot water, cooking). We still flare (burn off) vast amounts (less in the USA than anywhere else) of global natural gas mostly due to lack of infrastructure (pipelines) or storage (LNG). Natural gas is far more environmentally friendly than wind or solar and will remain so until that is no longer the case. Even then lifecycle assessments that calculate the entire carbon footprint inputs for deployment and maintain of wind and solar may still not vindicate them as clean energy sources, especially when considering recycling or disposal costs along with impact on the environment. Wind and solar is a green energy myth unless you ignore all that.
    Complete nonsense we’ve used natural gas for thousands of years. Also how is it more environmentally friendly? You’re literally extracting and burnings billions of tons releasing pollutants into the atmosphere. A wind turbine becomes carbon neutral after around 1-2 years of being commissioned. Where are you getting your information from?
    Zaranthos said:


    Guess what other industries and advancements used to be wildly unprofitable money pits before they were developed and advanced enough to become profitable? The commercial Internet, the electric power grid, automobiles, commercial aviation, personal computers, and railroads to name a few. Don't be so naive in thinking AI is a wasted venture when it has already begun to show enormous potential. Unless you think all those other advancements are worthless as well. There were winners and losers in all those things as well yet they've all helped propel humanity to new levels of success and prosperity.
    I don’t think you read the comment
    Reply
  • Bigshrimp
    Zaranthos said:
    We used to burn off most natural gas as a waste product that just impeded petroleum production before we eventually built the infrastructure (mostly pipelines) to capture and use if (electricity, heating, hot water, cooking). We still flare (burn off) vast amounts (less in the USA than anywhere else) of global natural gas mostly due to lack of infrastructure (pipelines) or storage (LNG). Natural gas is far more environmentally friendly than wind or solar and will remain so until that is no longer the case. Even then lifecycle assessments that calculate the entire carbon footprint inputs for deployment and maintain of wind and solar may still not vindicate them as clean energy sources, especially when considering recycling or disposal costs along with impact on the environment. Wind and solar is a green energy myth unless you ignore all that.

    Guess what other industries and advancements used to be wildly unprofitable money pits before they were developed and advanced enough to become profitable? The commercial Internet, the electric power grid, automobiles, commercial aviation, personal computers, and railroads to name a few. Don't be so naive in thinking AI is a wasted venture when it has already begun to show enormous potential. Unless you think all those other advancements are worthless as well. There were winners and losers in all those things as well yet they've all helped propel humanity to new levels of success and prosperity.
    This is complete and utter nonsense... Renewable energy, like wind and solar are far more environmentally friendly than any of the fossil fuels being expelled continuously into the atmosphere. Pollutants are a net negative and is causing massive shifts in climate change.

    Scientists have already settled these facts and I have no idea where you are getting your pseudoscience mumbo jumbo from, but it's completely ridiculous.
    Reply
  • Zaranthos
    Bigshrimp said:
    This is complete and utter nonsense... Renewable energy, like wind and solar are far more environmentally friendly than any of the fossil fuels being expelled continuously into the atmosphere. Pollutants are a net negative and is causing massive shifts in climate change.

    Scientists have already settled these facts and I have no idea where you are getting your pseudoscience mumbo jumbo from, but it's completely ridiculous.

    This should be simple to grasp, but I'll explain it since "science" is conveniently distorted from reality and barfed out as lies by media hacks. We're going to extract petroleum regardless and if we don't use natural gas we'll just burn it as waste (flaring) like we did in the past and still do to a large degree worldwide. That means using it for energy has no impact on carbon emissions because either way it will be burned and expel CO2, so why not just use it for energy? Solar and wind energy production carbon emissions don't start when they're installed they start from the raw resources needed to create them, all the way to the end of their life from installation, maintenance, disposal, or recycle (if even possible). They may not produce much or any CO2 once installed and running but that doesn't erase the lifetime cost required to make their limited lifespan possible. We now waste less natural gas than in the past because we use more but we still don't use anywhere near all of it. Solar and wind also relies on other things or it's not a viable 24/7 365 energy source. It simply isn't as green as advertised.
    Reply
  • Bigshrimp
    Zaranthos said:
    This should be simple to grasp, but I'll explain it since "science" is conveniently distorted from reality and barfed out as lies by media hacks. We're going to extract petroleum regardless and if we don't use natural gas we'll just burn it as waste (flaring) like we did in the past and still do to a large degree worldwide. That means using it for energy has no impact on carbon emissions because either way it will be burned and expel CO2, so why not just use it for energy? Solar and wind energy production carbon emissions don't start when they're installed they start from the raw resources needed to create them, all the way to the end of their life from installation, maintenance, disposal, or recycle (if even possible). They may not produce much or any CO2 once installed and running but that doesn't erase the lifetime cost required to make their limited lifespan possible. We now waste less natural gas than in the past because we use more but we still don't use anywhere near all of it. Solar and wind also relies on other things or it's not a viable 24/7 365 energy source. It simply isn't as green as advertised.
    I truly wonder how you get your information. So much misinformation/disinformation in everything you write. I have nothing else to say because it's just the same from you on every reply.
    Reply
  • alan.campbell99
    Hmm, I wonder if this starts having an effect on the jet engine industry's customers in some way similar to consumer electronics.
    Also the bit about Elon and impossible things? That almost reads like he has direct technical involvement with Tesla and Spacex's developments when he does not, he's not an engineer or an inventor he just plays one on TV. Just look at the Cybertruck for an example of what happens when he's more directly involved in a product.
    Reply