<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The ESA has too many members. The larger an international organization is the more unwieldy it becomes as more and more of it's efforts are wasted on arguing over who contributes what and who gets what. It becomes an exercise in herding cats, be it the ESA, the ISS, or the UN. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The ESA is not really structure in a way that requires constant particpation by all members. Members can opt out of many of the ESA projects, and these projects will still continue, even if only one or two nations fund them. That's actually the beauty of the ESA: small missions championed by only a few countries don't get raided for money by the larger flagship programs.<br /><br />Where your argument about infighting does have merit is in the large flagship program, Aurora. Without support and money from most of the members, this is simply too expensive a program to undertake. However, one nation cannot sink the program. For example, the UK can opt not to fund Kliper development, but that's not going to kill ESA participation.