> Paper should serve the people, not the other way around. I definitely agree with you on that, and I agree that the government can be over burdensome and take

> Paper should serve the people, not the other way around. I definitely agree with you on that, and I agree that the government can be over burdensome and take too long. However, NOAA is the one charged with enforcing the law on it, they did not write the law. If you disagree with the law, I encourage you to write your congressman and see what it takes to change the law. I think there is a fundamental disagreement on the intent on what NOAA is doing. I personally don't see it as hostile, nor do I think they are flexing their muscle. If it was true that SpaceX only came to them 3 days before the launch, I think that is unfair to NOAA to ask for a license so quick. If they did follow the 120 day policy and NOAA didn't give them a license, then the fault is on NOAA. What I find odd is NOAA's own statement says: "SpaceX applied and received a license from NOAA that included conditions on their capability to live-stream from space." So is SpaceX violating their license? I think there is much more at play when just what the article says. Personally, I have a feeling another government agency saw what SpaceX was doing, saw they didn't have a license, and NOAA got in trouble because they weren't enforcing that law, and now NOAA is caught in the cross fire.