Equipment design standards
All hardware should fit to some basic design criteria. These come from the overall mission philosophies. (nano light, ultra cheap, no frills whatsoever, open, easily repeatable, and in a perfect world, buildable in the home workshop.)
With that being said, here are several thoughts on hardware requirements; (These are open to discussion, this page will remain editable for some while.)
Off the shelf wherever possible.
They should be mass producible. They should be of a design type that they can be easily manufactured. (No advanced, multi part casting/forging operations, no 6 step heat-treating, why build a circuit on a chip when it can be built by off the shelf components on a board.) Of course, if it is an absolute mission requirement to do these sorts of things, then do it, but be prepared to document it well enough that many shops can bid on the part, (thereby making it cheaper.)
Good enough is close enough. We would rather have 50 parts that are 90% than 1 part that is 99.999% As long as the part or hardware will do the job safely, I'm happy with it. Why build a different lander for every mission when we can build 25 of the mark 1 lander. It may not be perfect for the job, but it will do the job and be much cheaper.
Think in terms of long term survivability where appropriate. (Why make a suit helmet with a hemispherical dome that is unworkable when several polishable flat plates will do? - Note, also we need to consider human survivability.)
Think in terms of modularity and multi-system use. (one lander, multiple tank/rocket configurations. one rover to do many different tasks with just a change in tools, one standard camera for larger views, one for microscopic, etc. One standard lower stage engine, and strap more together to achieve the required thrust.)
This is just a start. Discuss this among yourselves