In late 2004, a fierce closed-door debate on Capitol Hill burst into the open. Several senators announced publicly that they believed Congress was frittering away precious budget dollars on a proposed new version of Misty. At $9.5 billion, it was likely the largest item in the intelligence budget. While being careful not to mention the codename or specific nature of the project, US senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), described the new satellite as "unnecessary, ineffective, overbudget, and too expensive."

Part of the reason for the apparent ineffectiveness, of course, is the skill of the satellite sleuths. Even if the observers do not currently have a bead on Misty, the fact that they have seen it and continue to look for it - and have posted info on pretty much everything else - raises questions about the efficacy and expense of stealth technology in space. "It's not an encouraging data point that these dudes could find the damn thing," observes the University of Maryland's Lewis.

Not surprisingly, the intelligence community isn't happy with the amateur observers. "If we had our druthers, we would prefer that these things not end up on the Internet," says Rick Oborn, an NRO spokesperson. "It's no secret that other countries stop doing what they're doing when the satellites are overhead." Several years ago, then-senator Bob Kerrey (D-Nebraska) went a step further when he suggested that hobbyists who publish spy-sat information online are supporting terrorists.

For a short time after September 11, some hobbyists stopped posting the orbital elements for military satellites. But today the general feeling is that amateur observation is ultimately just that - something anyone could pick up. National governments could do it easily with their sophisticated radar tracking operations. Terrorists could make their own observations with a pair of binoculars and high-school math skills.