For technology that involves complex engineering issues, standardization and specialization is extremely helpful. If I want to design a complex ASIC IC I don't design it from scratch, I just drag-and-drop thoroughly tested and characterized blocks from another company's standard cell library who specializes in this, and If I design a fancy cell phone I (usually) open up catalogs and order thoroughly tested and characterized ICs again made by other companies who specialize in supplying these. If I require a new IC then I still reach for those standard cell libraries.
If I'm going to visit a neutron star, I don't build my ship from scratch, I simply order a thoroughly tested and characterized general products hull built by a species who specializes in supplying these.
Recently both of the crew capsules being designed for NASA were either delayed or threatened with delays due to parachute issues, and I have just read that
Apparently ESA has had major problems in getting the parachutes right
I'm sure I can find other examples in the last several years where spaceflight mission schedules were threatened by parachute failures.
I understand that every spacecraft is different and therefore the ideal parachute will need to be different, but here in 2020 why can't there be worldwide standard spacecraft parachutes in small, medium and large?
Is it "not invented here" thinking or otherwise a good idea but not likely to happen, or are the differences between mission demands and atmospheric density and velocity at deploy time so different that each spacecraft demands a totally new parachute despite the statistically significant dangers of mission delays due to unanticipated failures during final testing?