Maybe it's Option 1)
It looks like Option 1) but that might be a cover story. Refer to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/politics/12spy.html?ei=5065&en=38d2c542cd65d913&ex=1103432400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=
I'm a little bit suprised. $9.5 billion is a bit pricey. These big recon satellites are essentially Hubbles with orbit adjust capability. They normally cost about a billion bucks. There is probably something attached to this appropriations bill that they aren't telling Congress about (a nuclear powered satellite zapper?). Someone has probably detected this and gone public to call their bluff. This could get interesting.
Gary