why can't they make a Steinberger using 3D technology manufacturing?

Which "3D technology" exactly are you talking about?

Most mass produced bodies and necks are carved using 3 dimensional milling equipment, at least for the rough shape.
 
3d printing covers a pretty broad range of methodologies but the main holdup for something like the steinberger bridge (and I'm generalizing here) is a lack of ability to create robust parts that would hold up as well as or perform as well as machined parts. At least not for the same cost.
 
I own a tiny manufacturing company, and I have used 3D printing extensively for prototyping and mold masters. It's fantastic to be able to get a mockup of your design for $10-100 in a couple hours rather than paying a machinist $65/hr to work on it all week. Perfect for checking the ergonomics and improving your ability to visualize the relationships between parts.

But then when you go to manufacture, you need to get parts for under $1, not 10 or 100, and you need them popping off the line every minute, not in a couple of hours. Plus the vast majority of 3D printed plastic parts are fragile because they don't have fibers (such as wood grain or glass or graphite) running through the part. Dimensional tolerances are also an issue--some printing technologies are very precise, but they cost. The cheap ones are as precise as their cheapness suggests. Injection molds let you churn out 100,000 parts a month for pennies apiece with much tighter tolerances in a much greater variety of materials, including some that are very strong.

Metal 3D printing has come a long way, but a small part that might cost you $10 to mass-produce with CNC machining or investment casting will cost $700 to print, with no volume discount. Literally, I priced that out a while back. The parts thus produced are not as strong as proper forged parts, but they are surprisingly strong. I don't know if they'd take the force of a bass string or not.

So a 3D printed bass would be a neat novelty, and might let you explore some things, like weirdly braced sealed chambering, that would be tricky with conventional construction. But absolutely nobody is going to mass-produce anything that way.
 
^This

I read somewhere that some smallish Swedish synth manufacturer (Clavia?) uses 3D printing for spare parts (to minimize stock), but that would be less complicated (and smaller) plastics than a whole bass body.
 
I admit i have very little knowledge when it comes to 3D printing, that's why I thought I would put the question out there, to get a better understanding on the manufacturing
process it takes to produce a Steinberger from days gone by to present-day using todays technology.
 
I own a tiny manufacturing company, and I have used 3D printing extensively for prototyping and mold masters. It's fantastic to be able to get a mockup of your design for $10-100 in a couple hours rather than paying a machinist $65/hr to work on it all week. Perfect for checking the ergonomics and improving your ability to visualize the relationships between parts.

But then when you go to manufacture, you need to get parts for under $1, not 10 or 100, and you need them popping off the line every minute, not in a couple of hours. Plus the vast majority of 3D printed plastic parts are fragile because they don't have fibers (such as wood grain or glass or graphite) running through the part. Dimensional tolerances are also an issue--some printing technologies are very precise, but they cost. The cheap ones are as precise as their cheapness suggests. Injection molds let you churn out 100,000 parts a month for pennies apiece with much tighter tolerances in a much greater variety of materials, including some that are very strong.

Metal 3D printing has come a long way, but a small part that might cost you $10 to mass-produce with CNC machining or investment casting will cost $700 to print, with no volume discount. Literally, I priced that out a while back. The parts thus produced are not as strong as proper forged parts, but they are surprisingly strong. I don't know if they'd take the force of a bass string or not.

So a 3D printed bass would be a neat novelty, and might let you explore some things, like weirdly braced sealed chambering, that would be tricky with conventional construction. But absolutely nobody is going to mass-produce anything that way.

Exactly this. The technology has to go much further to be feasible for regular production to be cost competitive as well as have enough strength. The best thing I have found with it is the ability to quickly generate rapid prototype pieces to prove out designs. The one we use at work paid for itself with the very first piece that was put through it by finding a screw boss that was incorrrectly positioned. The design engineer (my drummer BTW) knew the next morning there was a problem, adjusted his drawing, reprinted and had the corrected piece the next morning. This process could have taken a weeks time going thru traditional methods, sending the part out to be machined, receiving the component back and finding the problem, making the correction, remachining the component. The offset expense in time and and machining cost more than paid for the 3d printer. Rapid prototyping, that is where these excel! It's been possible to do this type of thing for a very long time using stereolithography, but the biggest drawback to those is the parts shrink and deform over time, in particular when they are exposed to UV light like your typical flourescent bulb.