Relativity Space 800million USD bite!, page-3

You mention 'hundreds of competitors' however you only list one which I would not classify as a competitor.

EOS or Electro Optical Systems uses Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) for polymer plastic printing and Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) for metal printing. Both of these processes are subtypes of powder bed fusion. If you take a look here: (https://www.eos.info/metal-solutions/metal-printers) You can see how these are powder bed fusion machines are able to print smaller more intricate parts for certain niche idustries that are willing to pay exorbitant sums of money for more expensive parts such as the aerospace industry. Powder bed fusion is far more expensive and has far lower printing speeds compared to WAAM 3D printing which is why it is more suited for the smaller more intricate parts such as those inside a rocket engine. However, depending on the size of the rocket AML3D's technology would be more suitable for the frame of the missile, or structural components of a larger plane.

For example:

AML3D's current deposition rates are around 7-8kg per hour.

EOS's current printing speed is roughly 10–30 cm³/hour, which translates to ~0.08–0.25 kg/hour, depending on the material used due to its mass.

If we would like to prints a 3 ton part for the US Navy this would take EOS 12,000 hours or 500 days of non-stop printing. However, this would only take AML3D 375 hours or 15.62 days of non-stop printing (I used the upper range of both of their print speeds). This does not even scratch the surface of what her next iteration of machine could be able to print.

Also again, remember that powder bed fusion requires a small highly controlled enclosed space (unless you build a massive printer) for the printer to operate whereas, AML3D's technology can print in an open, free format space and her print size is only restricted by mobility systems.

Another point here is that a lot of these supposed contracts you mention are exactly the same as AML3D's contracts. Smaller scale characterisation and testing contracts. The powder bed fusion method of print is more developed than WAAM 3D printing and closer to full commercialisation however the scope of its potential is limited by the cost, speed and scope of its capability. It will fit where it fits best and WAAM will do exactly the same.

We have talked about potential competitors on here before and as it stands there are only three serious ones with different technologies that could target the same industries (of which I only take two seriously and one of these is more focussed on the aerospace industry). The main one for me is Lincoln Electric however I have talked about her before in a previous post.

Finally, your sentiment is however justified. There have definitely been setbacks and commercialisation is taking longer than previously anticipated. There is also no 100% guarantee that AML3D's technology will progress and achieve the next level of size and scale that many of us here envision although there are good reasons to bet on it. Keep in mind AML is working on her own impressive R&D projects with the Navy and through Oakridge and others. She is also printing components that are going onto nuclear powered attack submarines and has in the past printed components for the hunter class frigates which are both vital to Australia. In this context some rocket components printed for a small company such as Gilmour are not worth worrying about.