If Tom could spend 15 minutes to answer my sports trivia question I'd be remiss not to find the data I had the info to find easily.

CAPS Report

page 9:
"The CAPS study team is focusing on three different detection architectures to accomplish
the mission functions:
– Lunar surface based
– Heliocentric orbit (nominally at 1AU – potentially Lagrange points)
– Earth orbiting

CAPS could utilize existing/future Earth ground-based assets. Future dedicated facilities,
such as the Large-Aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope, could be linked.

The placement of CAPS assets is greatly influenced by assumptions regarding the
availability of synergistic space infrastructure (e.g., Lunar base). The final system may be
configured with elements at various locations."

Note the major focus and contribution of this CAPS team is working on mitigation not detection strategies. A case for the moon being more effective for a permanent defense system might be made, but that investment is a huge potential waste if not actually needed - in particular if no NEOs are a near term threat or effective single launch methods are developed. The kinds of missions that we may not be able to develop if spending multi-billions on a project with the same risk of cancellation and downgrading we see with the ISS.

The astronomers recommend focusing on detection and characterization. Find out if there is a problem and learn the enemy/resource's weaknesses/value while doing so. If there is one headed our way then worry about diversion because they believe we will have many years if not decades of warning except for objects too big and fast to stop with current technology anyway. I can find the references for these claims as well EP, so don't bother with your usual baffle em with bullshit counter argument. Morrison's site has links to all the major NEO reports.

EP you may have no idea how often impacts occur, but professional astonomers, geologists, and planetologists do. I think cross checking between lines of evidence from these three professions is far more productive and reliable than myth chasing.

Regards,
Mark