Your sense of value is grossly deficient if you think a moon based detection system with no clear advantage over an orbital one and orders of magnitude more cost has more intrinsic value than a second home for humanity and starting mankind on the path to becoming a true spacefairing species.

We can do a good job of detecting threatening objects for an order of magnitude more spending than we are doing now and do not need an additional 2 orders of magnitude more spending beyond that.

The RASC report makes it clear a lunar scope makes no sense from a cost effectiveness standpoint except when the infrastructure is already there. This is yet another case of lunar promotors trying to cobble together enough weak arguments such as He3 fusion (lets talk wehen easier fusion processes have been demonstrated) and early Earth fossils (the chances of finding any are highly unlikely) to justify a lunar base. It is yet another thing we could do on the Moon, but we don't need to do on the Moon and certainly not for the price it will cost.

As a real engineer I am well aware that in technology is a work in progress. I am also well aware that it takes time and money to improve the technology. It is also obvious to anyone with common sense let alone engineering sense that radical advances in technology would be needed to make the moon option competitive in price with an orbital one. The kind of breakthrough we would all be talking about if it were on the table.

You have no links to show a cost effective lunar option because there are none.

There are many causes for loss of life. If you were truly interested in saving lives alone, all of the money saved by going with an orbital detection system rather than a lunar one could save far more lives than finding small impactors and you could still find them with the orbital system. Immunization programs, and many other safety systems in use in the US could save thousands to millions of lives annually if implemented in poor countries which can not afford them.

Regards,
Mark