Jack is a geologist not an astronomer. To understand what astronomers know about the issue both you and he should read the expert reports on the issue.

http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/chapter5.htm
http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/reports/spaceguard/sg_5.html
and most importantly
http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/reports/spaceguard/sg_6.html#6.4

"However, radar observations do not become feasible until the object's expected position can be refined (from optical astrometry) to better than about 1 arcmin, and an accuracy of 10 arcsec or better is preferable. A single radar detection has a fractional precision that is two or three orders of magnitude beyond that of optical astrometry, so the inclusion of radar data with the optical data in the orbit solution can quickly and dramatically reduce the future ephemeris uncertainty. "

The moon is only a superior radar astronomy site not a superior optical astronomy site. Orbiting scopes are a far more economical and effective space based option. Large ground based scopes are an even cheaper if slower option. At least a large ground based survey scope capable of detecting 90% of 300 m objects could detect most 100m objects over several decades as opposed to the current drop in a bucket rate. That estimate is based solely on current estimates showing the same time span for 300 m objects on systems designed to detect most 1 km objects over 10 years. With about the same relative area ratio of roughly 1/9 the relative detection rate should be similar. The completion time would also be a function of the ratio of the population sizes. It should be similar since the number of neo's in each size category is a geometric function of diameter, but the exponant does increase slightly as size decreases towards 100 m.

Who exactly do you claim supports using them for detection?

Also please tell me which of the search programs listed at http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/stats.html you think are radar based? If none why do you suppose that is?

Also why do continuously seek to prove that you are far from an impact expert counter to your claims by making these easily disproven claims?

Forgive me if you actually bothered to respond the last time I posted these questions rather than avoiding them for the upteemth time, but I've been far too busy to check in with this board lately.

Jack is a purveyor of logical sounding but fundamentally weak arguments for returning to the Moon. Just as his He3 fusion fuel justification overlooks the poor outlook for fusion in general let alone the more difficult nature of He3 fusion, he overlooks far more rational approaches to asteroid detection.

The latest dumb justification put forward by lunar supporters is finding ancient fossils ejected from Earth. They fail to mention the odds of finding what does possibly exist are far lower than the odds of finding evidence for life on Mars if it ever existed. On Mars we would know what types of geological formations to inspect based on orbital data while meteorites from Earth would be needles in many many haystacks randomly distributed across the Moon.

Regards,
Mark