Do you even Standardize?

[Thomas988]

A standardized space program is a happy space program. Or at least that's what I think. There's something about designing your own launch stage and using it on everything that feels so wonderful. In fact, a while ago I tried building a shuttle that could travel anywhere in the Kerbin system at any time. Unfortunately I only got around to launching one shuttle, and it only served in one mission, but I still think the idea of setting up a standardized shuttle system across the entire solar system to transfer Kerbals anywhere at any time I wanted would be awesome.

[Rainbow-Dashie]

My Rovers are sort of standardized, its pretty much the same chasis of the vehicle but modified to suit the mission, extra seats for transport, extra fuel tanks for refueling, science equipment, I have one that carriers a small 1-man rocket... Sort of works like a Jeep, can be everything from an ambulance, to a machine gunner, to a troop transport, or fire TOW Missiles

[WafflesToo]

I usually maintain 2 or 3 standard launchers, and I have these little "roundabout" things that I use to ferry things around in orbit, but a lot of my mission payloads tend to be one-off designs... sometimes

[Madrias]

Only technical standard I carry over is basic action group keys. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are Engine Related, with 5 being occasionally used for Engines if needed. 6 is almost always a half-stage of lighting. 7, 8, and 9 are used for things done in orbit, where I don't need to be looking at the screen so I can prod the right key. (1-6 are easy to reach. 7 is a good two-finger-wide gap away from 6. I use an ergonomic splitboard and really should get around to reassigning action groups to my numeric keypad...)

[Dat_Spacewaffle]

What is this "standardize" you speak of, it sounds like I need to repeatedly do the same thing, which is boring.

[Kobymaru]

What is this "standardize" you speak of, it sounds like I need to repeatedly do the same thing, which is boring.

Actually, it's kind of the opposite. Fore example, you don't need to design the same ascent stage for every single payload anymore, so you can focus on the payload and the mission itself.

[JordanL]

What is this "standardize" you speak of, it sounds like I need to repeatedly do the same thing, which is boring.

Here's an example of standardization:

All my craft use the same docking ends. Monoprop tank + radial part + quantum strut on the 90 degree angles + RCS.

Not only does this make it super easy for me to build, but it also makes it painless to dock. Everything has the same styled docking ports, and since they ALL have the radial part at the 90 degree angles, any two craft that dock automatically strut themselves into a rigid craft.

[Rabada]

I have been working on a standardized fleet of ships using various aspects of Interstellar mod. I can build a successful Mun lander in the VAB in 10-15 minutes. Interstellar ships take me hours to figure out a design, until I get something that kind of works. Then I'll use it for 10 minutes, until a problem comes up and I have to redesign it.

[Rus-Evo]

I think standardization is the unavoidable result of learning in the game. We obviously reuse designs and concepts that work well. I think it would be tough being consistently original AND successful!

Also I would not want to design & build a new heavy lifter or Interplanetary mother ship when all I want is to send a new rover or lander to a location!