Over at NASASpaceflight.com. The Italian proposal is quite intriguing (I'm guessing that some of the people involved were the same ones teamed with Boeing on CE&R), and the Lockmart proposal seems better as well. Of course, from an affordability and sustainability standpoint, it's hard to do worse than ESAS.

If the effort is commercial, I favor EML-1 & EML-2 transfer stations and fully re-useable lunar landers fueled with lunar LOX and terrestrial fuel (methane, H2, propane, kerosene -- whatever works best).

NASA? A NASA operated L point transfer station would set back the commercial opening of the Moon by decades.

eml-2 allows anytime anywhere flights to the lunar surface or back and requires lower delta vee than eml-1.