Podcast: Additive succeeds when 'no one cares the part they're holding is 3D printed'
Key Highlights
- Additive succeeds when focused on one material, one technology, and one specific use case.
- Digitizing legacy manufacturing processes enables faster iteration and eliminates tooling constraints.
- Variability between printers is a major scalability challenge solved by software and closed-loop systems.
- Future AM success depends on making 3D printing an invisible tool integrated across all manufacturing sectors.
In this episode of Great Question: A Manufacturing Podcast, Ben Wynne of Intrepid Automation helps Smart Industry's Scott Achelpohl veer from the M&A soap opera and get into the weeds about what industrial 3D printing is doing for aerospace, defense, automotive, health care and semiconductor production.
Below is an excerpt from the podcast:
SA: Hello, everyone, and welcome to another great episode of Great Question: A Manufacturing Podcast, and another brought to you by Endeavor B2B brand Smart Industry. I'm Scott Achelpohl, head of content for Smart Industry, and I'm joined by Ben Wynne, who is CTO of Intrepid Automation. He has an interesting perspective and profile within his company, which creates modular, industrial-scale additive manufacturing systems—industrial 3D printing for high-volume production using a patented DLP, or digital light processing, build process.
Here's the thing. We've had podcast episodes recently on additive, or AM, in 2025 alone, but frankly, this is a chance on the program to stray from our usual business bent about all the merger and acquisition drama in additive—and I'm looking at you, Nano Dimension and Desktop Metal. It gives us a chance to discuss what industrial 3D printing does for certain sectors of manufacturing, in this case with Ben, five very interesting ones: aerospace, defense, automotive, healthcare, and semiconductor production.
So this chat's squarely about applications for additive technology and not so much about all the M&A inside baseball. Ben's a Brit, so he probably knows a little bit about baseball. And Ben is a technology guy in additive, so he's the right person to speak on this. We welcome Ben to Great Question: A Manufacturing Podcast, and we thank him for joining us. Hello, Ben.
BW: Hello, Scott. Thank you so much for having me today. I'll give you a little bit of background about myself. So I am, as you say, a Brit and a technologist. I've been in the additive industry for about two decades. My whole focus has been making things real—making the promises that a lot of people have made over a long period of time actually happen. And there's a lot of reasons, I believe, why that hasn’t always happened: too general-purpose, too much focus on too many things simultaneously.
I think where additive has really succeeded is when there's clarity of intent and a real focus on solving a problem for a particular industry or a particular need. And the five that you list are something that we've been very passionate about since founding Intrepid in 2017. So, pleasure to be here.
SA: Ben, we promised in our opener to stray from the M&A soap opera of additive and deal with the sectors of industry where your company builds systems to operate. You're a CTO, not a typical C-suite inhabitant. Here's the question: of the five we mentioned—aerospace, defense, automotive, healthcare, and semiconductors—where is additive showing the most promise? Does any vertical stand out right now?
BW: Great question. I think if you look at these five—and all these other things that we've seen in the hype or media over the last couple of decades around additive—you see that additive is not one thing. AM is not one thing. It has its own Gartner hype cycle. It’s many dots, from bioprinting to things that we're familiar with, like printing at home, which was completely foreign in the early 2000s.
I think if you look at—let’s go through the industries one by one. So your first one is aerospace. I think what we're seeing is war is changing. You look at things like the war in Ukraine and how UAVs and drones are changing the theater of war, how quickly that technology is evolving as both the weapons and the countermeasures to those weapons are created. There’s a massive need for speed and iteration as both sides are trying to find new ways of doing things to improve their outcomes.
I think if you compare that with the legacy way that defense programs are run, or spare parts and part production is done—we need to make a lot of one thing; we need to make a lot of tanks or a lot of planes, and this plane is going to have a 50- to 75-year lifespan—you'll see that we’ve traditionally made a lot of these parts conventionally, with tooling and existing processes. And you're going to have the time to create a much slower supply chain.
I think where the missions are changing, where the demands on the vehicles are changing, and where there's that pressure from rapid iteration on both sides, you're seeing speed become imperative. And that's where additive can really come in. So it's really interesting to look at what's happening with things like edge manufacturing in defense and aerospace, as well as how DFAM is enabling new ways of doing things.
I think metal printing is a really interesting one to focus on—how has metal printing been successful in defense and aerospace applications, and how has it not, and why? It's something I'm very passionate about. I'll say there's a kind of kernel of truth around all of these things—all of these five that you talk about—where the conventional way of doing things is too slow. It's maybe too capital-intensive upfront, and your ability to change once you've finalized the design is really, really limited.
You say medical. One really important thing: the conventional way of making medical implants, for example, would be that you would design a series of implants. Classically, it's 10 sizes, 15 sizes left knee, 15 sizes right knee. Back in the day, it was only five. You're seeing more interim steps now, which means more products. You're even seeing gender-specific medical implants being created.
They're classically using an existing manufacturing process that's 4,000 years old called investment casting, or lost-wax casting. The input to that is making a conventional mold out of metal that you inject wax into, which is in the shape of the final metal part that you want.
Take medical implants, for example. You need 15 sizes left knee, 15 sizes right knee—that's 30 tools. Then if you have gender-specific tools, that's now 60 tools. Each tool may cost in excess of $10,000. You're talking about $600,000 initial capital outlay, and up to a year, year and a half, to get all those tools in, tested, and qualified.
Now, once you've got them, the investment casting process is massively scalable, massively consistent, highly optimized, because we've been doing it forever, and the U.S. has incredible capability to do this. So what's the thing that slows it down and limits it? It's that tooling, that front-end piece.
So what we've been working on at Intrepid has been digitizing the front end of existing manufacturing processes to get the best of both. You're leveraging hundreds of years of investment in U.S. infrastructure, U.S. know-how, and U.S. capability, but you're digitizing the front end to enable faster iteration, faster time-to-market, elimination of tooling, and more advanced designs.
So that's kind of a quick summary of how all of these industries you talk about are suffering from the same problem. They all need a tool, or they all need someone to make something to help them make something. So where I see additive really raising the bar is enabling and digitizing the front end of existing legacy manufacturing processes in America.
SA: Quite interesting. But speaking of knowledge, at a trade show this summer I learned about a software company's product that helps manufacturers perform very sophisticated modeling, on both large and small scales, to predict the fit and reliability of parts before they are actually 3D printed—“printed,” quote-unquote. The demo I saw was coincidentally for an aerospace client—a defense contractor. Does Intrepid utilize such software on behalf of its customers to predict the efficacy of a part before it gets installed on, say, a guided missile? Again, does Intrepid utilize such software on behalf of its customers?
BW: Great question. I think, again, if you take additive out of the equation and look at conventional manufacturing, these are the staples of quality systems, yield optimization. Highly regulated spaces like medical and aerospace already have to do as much as they can to understand how these parts will function when they're produced.
I think the elephant in the room with additive is that you buy one printer—classically, you buy one printer—you can get it dialed in to make the part that you want. You now want to increase your capacity. You spend the money, you buy a second printer, and more often than not, that second printer does not make the same part as the first printer you created.
So, in my experience working with aerospace and defense companies in the past, you may have in excess of 100 or 200 industrial 3D printing machines. They say the machines are great, but they're snowflakes. They produce different parts print-to-print, printer-to-printer.
When we started Intrepid, we really wanted to make sure that we solved that issue because that's one of the reasons scalability has been challenging in a lot of industries trying to leverage additive. They'll try, they'll spend the money, they can't deal with that variability, and then they mothball it and go back to what they used to. Unfortunately, that means the well has been poisoned for another cycle, if not a generation.
The first thing we worked to solve was that consistency problem. When you're building hardware—building systems that do things—you can make it out of more and more expensive, more and more precise components. That's one way to do it. But you buy a motor, you buy a laser, you buy a projector—whatever it may be—every single one of those things has variability to it. Just because of manufacturing tolerances, it may be the same, but it's subtly different.
So what we worked really hard to do was use software and smart closed-loop sensor systems and control systems to measure that variation in real time, sometimes, and account for that printer-to-printer and inside a printer while it’s printing. That means that Intrepid Printer 1, 2, 3, 4—they all produce the same part in the same way, in the same time. And that means you can use that as a foundation to build on top of.
To talk a little bit more about application-specific simulation, we do a lot of work in casting, as I said—both sand casting, investment casting, things like that. It's been the norm for decades that you will simulate how the metal flows into a mold, how that metal solidifies, in order to get a really good quality casting. I mean, that is the norm.
I'd say that additive itself—some of these concepts of things like industrial IoT or closed-loop systems or whatever it may be—may be new in additive, but they're very commonplace in conventional manufacturing. And so what I've endeavored to do is bring the experience of my incredible team, who worked for companies like HP and others for decades and decades doing global manufacturing of industrial and consumer printers, and bring that kind of legacy knowledge and apply it to what was very variable and didn’t really need it because its core focus at one point was really prototyping.
Can I make one part? Is it in the shape that I need, kind of? You know, it's better than me trying to machine it out of something. It's still magic—going from nothing to something. But when you're talking about going from nothing to something a million times, the rules are different.
So I think additive is a really interesting use case to apply these kinds of smart systems to, because everyone—metal printing, all these processes—needs to adopt ways to remove that variability. I believe that’s one of the reasons why there hasn’t been as broad an adoption as we would have hoped over the last 30-plus years.
Smart Industry covers the digital transformation of manufacturing and the IIoT for industrial professionals.
SA: You've told me an awful lot about what Intrepid does already, but can you tell me more in general terms about what your company does in the additive space?
BW: Excellent. I mean, we don’t really see ourselves as a product company per se. We see ourselves as selling holistic solutions. So when we work with a company, we like to see what their needs are. And we have very modular, patented core technology around how the systems work and the size of the parts that we can print. And we work with the customer very collaboratively on how to solve their core problem, instead of just trying to sell them a piece of capital equipment.
What that also means is that we're very sensitive about things like safety, about labor. I mean, labor is becoming one of the biggest challenges when it comes to scaling manufacturing, at least domestically. And so how can we take what has always been, in additive, a very manual process, and automate it? We're called Intrepid Automation. That automation piece is there for a reason.
Our mandate doesn’t stop at the printer. We have to make a very good, very fast—in some cases 10 times faster than conventional 3D-printing technologies—system. But we also have to think: what's the next weakest link? And a lot of that time, it's post-processing. A lot of that time, it's how to get the data into the system fast enough, and things like that.
So what we like to do is not just think of ourselves as a general-purpose prototyping or 3D-printing company. We try to focus on core market verticals like investment casting, sand casting, molding, fixtures—industries that all five of the sectors you've listed need.
Semiconductor manufacturing, for example, needs a lot of fixtures that hold new things around these factories, and every time they create a new chip, they need a whole new load of these. And these are consumables. Sometimes tens of thousands of parts a month are needed just to move things from A to B, let alone when you start to look at things like wafer polishing pads and the advancements and speeds that need to be optimized there.
So I really think the core is: we don’t sell printers; we sell solutions to problems, and then benefit from long-term relationships with the companies we help solve those problems for.
Our core technology really is built around modular DLP technology. Everyone's familiar with the single-projector print systems that kind of have maybe the size of a small notebook or a large iPhone. Our technology allows us to grow that build area almost indefinitely by stitching together multiple projectors and calibrating them so it looks like one big image. That means that instead of taking 100 hours to print something, we can take 10. And that then starts to open up the use-case window for production, because you can start to make a lot more parts, a lot faster, out of one asset—where it may make sense to go to tooling with the old-school technology.
SA: And here is an interesting question, and it's one we've asked a lot in our business coverage. And I think it's the reason why there has been so much movement in the additive space, business-wise. Why has additive failed to penetrate the broader manufacturing industry?
BW: That's a multi-billion-dollar question. I think I've kind of touched on some of these points already. It's a lack of intent, and it's a lack of, I suppose, focus. When you're trying to be everything to everybody, that's the hardest thing to solve. You become a jack of all trades and a master of none.
Our approach has been very focused. We look at instances where additive has penetrated. There are some very specific aerospace applications where, as I say, many hundreds of machines are being used to make one part. At the same time, in things like dental, we're all familiar with clear aligners and incredible companies like AlignTech, who have been leveraging 3D printing for many decades. One technology, one material, for one use case—I mean, that is the definition of focus. And that has created a tens-of-billions-of-dollars company leveraging the technology from a company that was an order of magnitude smaller than them.
I think what's really interesting is: how can we find more opportunities like that, where there's 30, 40, 50 years of use, and you're not simply pivoting to the next kind of shiny object or next new machine that comes out? How can we focus on finding a way to fundamentally help manufacturing by leveraging additive—and not making it be about additive, but additive being simply the tool you use to help get the outcome?
I'd love to find a world where no one cares that the part they're holding, or the part that's in their car or in their plane, is 3D printed. It's just another way that we make stuff. So I would say the things I've touched on previously—cost, quality, speed—these core things that real manufacturing needs to rely on. They need to be able to simulate yield and throughput and highly optimize that. And when the machines are variable, it's a nightmare to do so.
So really solving labor and automation, material costs—by us developing our own materials for specific applications—which means we can bring price elasticity to the table as well. Where there's a customer that has a high need, we can be incredibly compelling compared to conventional ways of doing things. As well as working collaboratively with the customers, as I say, on solving their unique problem—even if it means customizing the hardware or creating a unique solution altogether. If the commercial opportunity is there, we can make that happen, where someone just selling a standard box can't.
SA: Here's a question that you've sort of answered, but I'm going to ask it directly: in which areas has AM seen the most success, and what factors have contributed to that success?
BW: Good question. I touched on some very specific aerospace components—you know, that essentially help create something that spins very quickly inside things that fly through the air. These are consumables, and there's a lot of them needed. And so additive has helped, again, in a very focused way in that industry. Additive has helped in things like, as I said, clear aligners. And there are a couple more, but we really need to work hard to find those kinds of use cases.
The prototyping market—doing something that is only a precursor to moving to something else or some conventional way of making things—has prevented the advantages of additive from being taken fully advantage of. One example is we're seeing technologies like generative design and topology optimization—essentially where you create these very organic shapes where the loads and forces are simulated, and the material is either added or removed in order to meet those force constraints. The problem with those kinds of geometries is they're very difficult to tool, if you can tool them at all. That means you can't scale it; you can't use it in mass manufacturing.
What is exciting about using things like digital casting for investment casting, for example, is you can now mass-produce these complex geometries. You can use these patterns within minutes in some cases and put that through the conventional process, which keeps the regulatory intact.
I mean, getting a plane or a train or a car—let alone a medical implant—to use an entirely new manufacturing process, there are safeguards in place to prevent that. The parts have to be tested. They have to be well understood. Which means when you've got a part for a plane, and it says on the drawing for that part that it has to be a casting in aluminum, the only way you can be allowed to put that part in a plane—even if you made it with metal printing—is if it's cast, not if it's metal printed. So we're working really hard to find those nuggets where additive can be used and can enable and empower, but all of the non-technical barriers to getting these parts used stay and remain intact.
If you look at things like defense, I mean, there's a whole legacy of parts that are needed out there where the tooling has been lost or the drawings don't exist anymore. The one a lot of people need is: “I need to send you a part from the tank or from the plane. I need you to reverse-engineer it, and I need you to digitally reproduce it while keeping the regulatory intact.” It's not just technical. The thing that stops it is not just technical. It's a lot of things that cover a broad range of skill sets that you need to be very sensitive to. It's not about selling a machine; it's about solving a problem.
SA: OK, here's our last question. What is your vision for AM over the next 10 years?
BW: That's a good question. I think I touched on it. It's really when no one cares. I mean, do we care that— I brought up this point earlier with a friend. At one point in time, aluminum was so scarce because we hadn't scaled the manufacturing of it that it was used as jewelry, and now we wrap turkeys in it for Thanksgiving.
We want it to be, I suppose, intellectually commoditized, but we want it to bring forth a bunch of different use cases. Take medical implants, for example. I believe that the logical endpoint for medical implants is that they're custom and they're tuned to every person's physiology. They fit perfectly, and that means your biomechanics remain intact. Your knee is not a generic knee that you then have to learn how to use and walk on. It's literally a replacement for the exact shape and dimensions of your original knee, which means you don't need to learn to walk again and learn how to use your body. You just are who you were. And that means less recovery time, fewer complications, and ultimately for insurance companies and such, less cost. So that's just one small piece of what I'd love to see—how additive makes itself kind of not the focus of everything.
One other example is: you go to these big manufacturing trade shows, and it used to be that there were CNC machines, injection molding machines, EDM machines, all these different core technologies in manufacturing where people are standing in front of them, and then, separate off in the corner, there’d be robotics companies showing six-axis robot arms. If you go to those conferences now, as opposed to 10-plus years ago, you now see that, yeah, there is the robot section, but in every one of these other sections across the entire gamut of manufacturing equipment, robotics is now an and. Robotics is a robot partnered with one of these machines.
I'd love to see a situation where there isn't so much a 3D printing conference per se. There's a manufacturing conference of which 3D printing is just another tool permeated across all these different industries and use cases. In 10 years, that’s really where I would love this to be—where no one really cares about 3D printing; it's just another tool, but one that has solved something fundamental.
SA: Again, about additive manufacturing, which is fascinating technology—and you mentioned medical technology. That's not really Smart Industry's vertical, but the additive manufacturing use cases (there's those words again—use cases) are fascinating in that area. AM is certainly an interesting marketplace for us to continue to observe beyond the M&A soap opera. And with that, I can't thank Ben enough for joining us on this episode of Great Question: A Manufacturing Podcast. Thank you, Ben.
BW: It's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you for having me, Scott.
About the Podcast
Great Question: A Manufacturing Podcast offers news and information for the people who make, store and move things and those who manage and maintain the facilities where that work gets done. Manufacturers from chemical producers to automakers to machine shops can listen for critical insights into the technologies, economic conditions and best practices that can influence how to best run facilities to reach operational excellence.
Listen to another episode and subscribe on your favorite podcast app
About the Author
Scott Achelpohl
Scott Achelpohl is the managing editor of Smart Industry. He has spent stints in business-to-business journalism covering U.S. trucking and transportation for FleetOwner, a sister website and magazine of SI’s at Endeavor Business Media, and branches of the U.S. military for Navy League of the United States. He's a graduate of the University of Kansas and the William Allen White School of Journalism with many years of media experience inside and outside B2B journalism.