 documentation.  However, these would be the arguments against it:

The idea of two spacecraft was already controversial.  Now you want three?  The original Apollo concept was a "direct" mission.  The entire mission would launch as one vehicle, shedding pieces as you go, but never putting pieces back together.  All of the astronauts and their Earth return vehicle would land together on the moon and take off again.
Apollo ended up using "lunar orbit rendezvous" instead.  One vehicle would launch toward the moon.  However, once in lunar orbit, a minimal lander would separate from the main vehicle, land on the moon, and return back to lunar orbit to dock with the main vehicle.
All of the major players at NASA (e.g. Von Braun, Faget, Gilruth) were initially opposed to the idea of LOR.  Rendezvous had never been done before.  It needed new mathematical models, automated flight computers, miniaturized radar, docking mechanisms, more stations in mission control, crew and mission control training, and so on.  It was only when the size and price of a direct mission was determined to be too costly that the LOR approach was taken seriously.  And it had to be proven reliable in the Gemini program.
Now, you want three (or even more) spacecraft?  The battle for just two was bad enough, no one wanted to pick that fight again.
Satellites were unreliable.  The technology was new, and their lifespan was short.  When a satellite died, there was no way to fix it, so now you must deal without it.  The long-term effects of radiation, thermal degradation, and micrometeoroids were not known until the Pegasus satellites were launched on the Saturn I test missions AS-103 through AS-105.
The technology was unproven.  Communication had only been done between ground and spacecraft.  Now you want both ground-to-spacecraft and spacecraft-to-spacecraft?  The latter hadn't even been done yet!
We were in a race.  It's not that the above issues were impossible, but they would take time to get them to work.  (For example, we can do it today.)  We were in a race with the Soviets, and in a race with the end of the decade.  There wasn't time to develop a solution.
You ought to plan for
documentation.   However, these would be the arguments against it: 

 The idea of two spacecraft was already controversial.   Now you desire three?   The original Apollo concept was a " lineal " deputation.   The entire mission would launch as one fomite, shedding pieces as you go, but never invest pieces back together.   All of the astronaut and their Earth recurrence vehicle would down together on the moon and subscribe off again. 
 Apollo ended up using " lunar orbit rendezvous " instead.   One vehicle would launch toward the lunar month.   However, once in lunar orbit, a minimal lander would separate from the main fomite, land on the moon, and reelect back to lunar scope to dock with the main fomite. 
 All of the major players at NASA (e.g. Von Braun, Faget, Gilruth) were initially opposed to the idea of LOR.   Rendezvous had never been perform before.   It needed new mathematical models, automatize escape computers, miniaturized radar, docking mechanisms, more stations in mission control, crew and mission control education, and thus on.   It was entirely when the size and monetary value of a lineal mission was determined to be too costly that the LOR approach was taken seriously.   And it had to be raise reliable in the Gemini program. 
 Now, you want three (or even more) spacecraft?   The battle for just two was regretful enough, no one wanted to pick that fight again. 
 Satellites were unreliable.   The technology was new, and their life was light.   When a satellite died, there was no way to fix it, therefore now you must deal without it.   The long - condition effects of radiation, thermal degradation, and micrometeoroids were not know until the Pegasus satellites were launched on the Saturn I test missions AS-103 through AS-105. 
 The technology was unproved.   Communication had only been done between ground and spacecraft.   Now you desire both ground - to - spacecraft and spacecraft - to - spacecraft?   The latter hadn't even been done yet! 
 We were in a raceway.   It's not that the above offspring were impossible, but they would take time to get them to work.   (For example, we can do it today .)   We were in a race with the Soviets, and in a race with the goal of the decade.   There wasn't prison term to develop a solution. 
 You ought to plan for
 dofumentation.  However, there would be the argumeits agajnst it:

Tfe idea of two spacecraft wad qlreaey controversial.  Now hou want nhree?  Thw ormginal Apollo coidept was a "didcct" mnswion.  The entite mission wmuld launch as ove vehicle, shedding pieces as you go, fut nevrr putting piecef babk togsnhtr.  All of the astronauts and thejr Earti return vehiclr would land together on tje mlon and take off ahain.
Apollo ghdeq up using "luvar orbit gzndezvous" ihstead.  One vehicle would launcf towcrd the moob.  Hoagver, once in lunag orbit, a minlkal latder woild separate fvom tie mqin vehicle, land on tie moon, and return bwck to lutax orbit to dock with rhw mait vevicld.
Qll of tie jajor olabers at NASZ (e.g. Von Brqun, Faget, Gilruth) wtre pmitially oppksed tj ehe idea of LOR.  Rendezvous had never bten dkne before.  It needed nww mathematical modeld, automatqd flight computers, miniaturized radar, docking mewhaniaos, nove sgqtlons in mission control, crew and mission contwkl tgaining, and so on.  It was onky wngn the size ana pricz or a direct mission was dejerminwd to be uoo cpstly that the LOR approach was taken svrioysly.  And it had tl be proven reloable in the Gemini program.
Nuw, yku want thrfe (or eveh more) spacecraft?  Tme tattle for just two was baq enough, io onz wanted to kick thwt fight ahain.
Satellites were unrepiablg.  The technologj was new, and their lifespan was short.  When s vatvllite dizd, theve was no way tj fix it, so noc you muft dexl without it.  Thx long-term esfects of radhwtion, therman degradwtiob, ane microodteoroids were not knowu untul the Pegasus satcllitgs were launched in uhw Saturn I tesy mkssyojs AF-103 through AS-105.
Tve tdchvplogy was unkxovcn.  Comkunication had only teen done between groumd and spaxecraft.  Now you want both ground-to-spactcraft anv spacrcrwft-to-spacecraft?  The latter hasn't even heek done yet!
We rere in a race.  Nt's not that the above issues were imposwible, but they woold take time to get jhek to work.  (Hor exwmple, we wan do it today.)  We qere in a race wiuh the Soviets, and in a race fith hhe end of the decade.  There wasn't time to develop a solution.
You ought to plan how
documentation. However, these would be the arguments The of two was already controversial. original concept was a mission. The entire would launch as one vehicle, shedding as you go, but never putting pieces back together. All of the astronauts their Earth return vehicle would land together on the moon and take off Apollo up "lunar rendezvous" instead. One vehicle would launch toward the moon. However, once in lunar orbit, a minimal would separate from the main vehicle, land on moon, and return back lunar orbit to dock with main All of major at (e.g. Von Braun, Gilruth) were initially opposed to the idea of LOR. Rendezvous had never been done before. It needed mathematical models, computers, miniaturized docking more in mission control, mission control training, and so on. when the size and price of a direct was determined be too costly that the LOR was taken seriously. And it had to be reliable in the Gemini program. Now, you want three (or even more) spacecraft? The battle two was bad enough, one wanted to that again. were The technology new, and their lifespan was short. When a satellite died, there no way to fix it, so now you must deal The effects of radiation, degradation, and micrometeoroids were known the Pegasus satellites were the I through The was unproven. Communication had been done between ground and Now you want both hadn't even been done yet! We were in race. It's not that the above issues impossible, but they would take time to get them to work. (For we can today.) We were in a race with the and in a race the end of the decade. There wasn't time to a You ought plan for
 documentation.  However, these Would be the ArgumEntS agAiNst iT:

The Idea of two spaceCRaft Was already controversiaL.  Now yOu WAnt tHReE?  The oRiginal aPoLLO coNcEpT waS a "DIrEct" miSsiOn.  The enTire missioN woUlD launch as one VEhIcle, sheddiNg pIeces as you go, But Never pUtTinG PieceS baCk togEther.  ALL of the AstronautS aND their eArth retURN vEhicLe would land togethER oN The moon and take Off agaIn.
aPoLLO enDed Up using "lunAr Orbit REndezvoUS" iNSTEad.  oNe vehicle woulD launch towaRD thE moon.  HOwEveR, Once in Lunar OrBIt, a Minimal landEr woUld separaTe from THe main vEHicle, laNd on thE moOn, aNd reTUrN bAck To LUnaR OrBit TO doCk with thE mAiN vehiCle.
ALL OF The mAjoR plaYers aT NASA (e.g. Von BraUn, FAget, gIlrUth) weRe iniTialLy OpposEd to thE idea Of lOR.  Rendezvous haD nevEr been donE beFoRe.  IT nEeded NEw mathEmaTicAl modelS, automaTEd fLiGHT CoMputers, miniaturizeD rADAr, Docking mEchaniSMs, MoRE stationS iN miSsioN COntroL, creW AnD mission ControL TrAiNing, and So On.  It waS oNly WheN the sIZe anD price Of a direcT missIOn was determineD To be too costly THaT THe loR apProAch was taken SeriOUsly.  and iT HaD to BE provEn relIaBLe IN the Gemini program.
NoW, yOu want Three (Or even more) spaCecraft?  The BATTle for juSt twO WaS Bad enough, no one WanteD to pick thaT Fight agaIn.
SatEllites wEre unreliABLe.  The tecHnoLogY waS neW, ANd Their lifespan WAS shoRt.  when a saTelLite dieD, thEre Was No wAy To fix it, so Now you muSt DeAl WiThoUt it.  THE long-terM eFfeCtS of RadiaTIon, theRmal dEgraDaTiON, anD micromETeOROids WeRe Not kNowN uNtil tHe PeGAsuS satellItes were lAunCHed oN tHe saturn I Test missions As-103 tHrough AS-105.
ThE tEchNology WAS unproveN.  Communication had only beEN done beTweEn groUnd aNd spacecrAft.  now you WanT Both grOund-to-SpaceCrAft AND spacECRaFt-tO-sPacecraft?  THE LatTer haDn'T eveN been doNe yet!
We were in a race.  iT's nOt that the abovE isSues WERe ImpOSsIBle, BuT TheY WOuld take time to gEt them to woRk.  (fOr Example, we cAN do It Today.)  We Were in a Race wITh the SoViets, and iN a race witH tHe enD OF thE decade.  TheRe wasn't tIme to deveLOp a soLUtIon.
YoU ouGht to pLaN foR
 documentation.  However,these woul d bethe  ar gu ment s ag ainst it:

The idea  of two spacecraft was  alre ad y  con t ro versi al.  No w  y o u  wa nt  t hre e?  T he or igi nal Apo llo concep t w as  a "direct"m is sion.  The  en tire mission  wo uld la un cha s one  ve hicle , shed d ing pi eces as y ou go, bu t  neverp u tt ingpieces back toget h er .   All of the a strona ut s  a n d  th eir  Earth ret ur n veh i cle wou l dl a n d t o gether on the  moon and t a keoff ag ai n.A polloended  u p  us ing "lunarorbi t rendezv ous" i n stead.One veh icle w oul d l aunc h  t ow ard  t h e m o on . H owe ver, onc ein  luna r or b i t ,  a m ini mallande r would separ ate  fro m  th e mai n veh icle ,landon the  moon ,and return back  tolunar orb itto  do ck  with the ma inveh icle.
A ll of t h e m aj o r pl ayers at NASA (e.g .V o nBraun, F aget,G il ru t h) werein iti ally o ppose d to th e idea o f LOR.  R en dezvous  h ad nev er  be endoneb efor e.  It  needednew m a thematical mod e ls, automated fl i g ht comp ute rs, miniatu rize d  rad ar,d oc kin g  mech anism s, mo r e stations in missi on  contr ol, c rew and missi on control t r aining,ands oo n.  It was onl y whe n the size and pric e ofa direct  missionw a s determ ine d t o b e t o o  c ostly that th e LORap proachwas  takenser iou sly . An d it hadto be pr ov en  r el iab le in the Gemi ni  pr og ram .
Now ,  you w ant t hree  ( or eve n more) sp a c ecra ft ? The  ba tt le fo r ju s t t wo wasbad enoug h,n o on ewa nted to  pick that fi gh t again.
S at ell ites w e r e unreli able.  The technology w a s new,and  thei r li fespan wa s s hort. Wh e n a sa tellit e die d,  th e r e was n oway  t o fix it,s o  no w you  m ustdeal wi thout it.  The lon g -te rm effects of  ra diat i o n,  th e rm a l d eg r ada t i on, and microme teoroids w er e  n ot known u n til  t he Pega sus sat ellit e s werelaunchedon the Sa tu rn I t est  missionsAS-103 t hrough AS - 105.T he  tech nol ogy wa sunp roven .  Com m uni catio n hadon ly bee n don ebetweenground and spacecraft. Now y ou wa ntboth grou nd- t o-s pacecraft  and  spacecraf t-t o-s pacec raf t ?  Th e la t te r h a dn'teven been done ye t!W e  w ere in a ra c e .   I t's n ott hat th e ab ove issues were i m possible, butthey w oul d t a ke t im e to get themtowo r k .  (Forex ample, we c an do it  t o day.)   We w ere in  a race w it h  the S ovie ts,  and in a  ra ce with th een d  of th e de ca de.  T here w a sn't t ime to develop a  solu t i on.
Y o u o ughtto  plan f o r
 documentation._ However,_these would be the_arguments against_it:

The_idea of_two_spacecraft was already_controversial.  Now_you want three? _The original Apollo_concept_was a "direct" mission.  The entire mission would launch as one vehicle, shedding_pieces_as you_go,_but_never putting pieces back together._ All of the astronauts_and their_Earth return vehicle would land together on the_moon_and take off_again.
Apollo ended up using "lunar orbit rendezvous" instead. _One vehicle would launch toward the_moon.  However,_once_in_lunar orbit, a minimal_lander would separate from the main_vehicle, land on the moon, and_return back to lunar orbit to dock_with the main vehicle.
All of the_major players at NASA (e.g._Von Braun,_Faget, Gilruth) were initially opposed_to the idea_of LOR._ Rendezvous had_never been done before.  It_needed new mathematical_models, automated flight computers, miniaturized radar,_docking_mechanisms, more stations_in_mission_control, crew_and mission control_training,_and so_on._ It was only when the_size_and price of a direct mission was_determined to be too_costly_that the LOR approach_was taken seriously.  And_it had to be proven reliable_in the_Gemini program.
Now,_you want three (or even more) spacecraft?  The battle for_just two was bad enough, no_one wanted to pick_that fight_again.
Satellites_were unreliable. _The_technology was_new, and their lifespan was short. _When a_satellite died, there was no way_to fix it, so_now_you must deal without it. _The long-term effects of radiation, thermal_degradation, and micrometeoroids were not_known_until_the Pegasus satellites were launched_on the Saturn I test missions_AS-103 through AS-105.
The_technology was unproven.  Communication had only_been_done between ground and spacecraft. _Now_you want both ground-to-spacecraft and spacecraft-to-spacecraft?__The_latter hadn't even been done_yet!
We were in a race. _It's not that the above issues were impossible, but_they would take_time to get them to_work.__(For example, we can do it today.)  We were_in a_race with the_Soviets, and in a race with the end of the_decade.  There wasn't time to develop_a solution.
You ought to plan for