Red Star: A Soviet Lunar Landing

[Bahamut-255]

There were two proposals 1965:

the N1F 1965 version
modified first stage with 11D51F Kuznetsov engines (is that the NK-33?)
in later version NIFV-II-III, All upper stage are replaced by Hydrogen/ Oxygen stage.

I think at the time, the NK-15 was still the engine in question, simply having its thrust upped to cope with the greater lift-off mass.

and
the N1M
here first stage is complete new design.
with two Hydrogen/ Oxygen stage, it would launch 250 tons LEO
and would be biggest rocket ever build: 200 meter high and 17 meter ø at base.

The N1 variant you described here is actually the monster N1MV-II-III, 165m in height and 16.8m at the base.

The N1M would be this, whose LEO payload was about the same as the OTL 3 stage N1 at ~95,000 Kg - although when I punched its numbers into Silverbird, I got ~91,000 Kg. In other words, it wouldn't be too different from the Saturn V Skylab Version.

The penalty is, IMHO, that you're effectively making a whole new LV with only a loose connection to the previous one. Plus another big - though manageable - one, if my numbers are right, even with just 24 NK-33 engines, you'd be pushing over 6g at Block A burnout and half those engines need to be turned off early to dodge this.

 

[fasquardon]

What I find very interesting about the N1M is that the upper stages have non-spherical fuel tanks and there is no open lattice-work between the stages.

I must say, having looked into it more I am kinda dubious that the Soviets would uprate the N1 anymore, beyond relatively small tweaks to boost efficiency and reliability. Indeed, I can see the existence of the N1 in this TL meaning the Energia is never developed. It seems to me that the Soviets could do pretty much anything they wanted with multiple N1 launches for alot less expense and difficulty than developing a new heavy lift system would require.

And it might be ironic if one of the the results of the disparity between the two boosters were to be the Soviet Union being famous for its prowess in miniaturization while America is famous for solid clunky reliable engineering.

fasquardon

 

[SpaceGeek]

Skylab 3 returned after gaining one interesting and important footnote in the history of spaceflight. While Apollo 8 had spent Christmas in lunar orbit, Skylab 3 had the first Christmas tree and celebrated New Years for the first time in Space (as the calendar year streaked from 1973 to 1974). After the Astronauts return Skylab was once again empty and waiting for it's next crew. Skylab 4 would be just that, and more!

Skylab 4 carried the third and final crew to the original Skylab Space Station. The CDR Gerald Parr was notable for being the Lunar Module pilot on Apollo 19. This earned him the title of being the second American Astronaut to visit both Moon and a Space Station. William Pogue was another member of the Skylab 4 crew having also flown with Parr into lunar orbit as the Command Module Pilot on Apollo 19. The sole rookie on the mission was Edward G Gibson, one of a new class of Astronaut-Scientists (that had only flown Apollo 18, Skylab 2 and 3).

The mission served a crucial purpose beyond mere research into the Sun or various man-tended experiments. Skylab 4's 84 day duration mission would finally break a 13 year long streak of long duration records. Ever since the first launch of Yuri Gagarin and Vostok 1 the Soviet Union had always been ahead in this one crucial respect. The Soviets were always one step ahead of the Americans in this regard. Now Soyuz 11's 63 day record had been shattered. Even more important than this however would be the life science objectives. By spending 84 days in space the Skylab 4 trio verified that humans could indeed live in Space for up to three months, the time needed for the LESA lunar base missions.

The crew also engaged in photographic observations of the Earth and (despite being explicitly told not to) captured Area 51 right on camera. Whether it was intentional or not is up for debate but one thing was certain. None of them would fly into space again. They returned safely none the less ending the first Skylab's last manned mission. However welcome mat was still there for more visitors. If the more advanced Skylab B (planned for 1975) failed during launch or became unusable for whatever reason Skylab would still be there as a backup destination (ironic as Skylab B was originally the launch backup for Skylab!)

Skylab 4 completed 1,214 Earth orbits and four EVAs totalling 22 hours, 13 minutes. They travelled 34.5 million miles (55,500,000 km) in 84 days, 1 hour and 16 minutes in space.

 

[Shevek23]

Skylab is there, physically in orbit--but I doubt you butterflied the Sun and its high activity later in the decade that accelerated its orbital deterioration.

More to the point, IIRC the Skylabs were not designed for resupply and the three crews used the supplies up, did they not? So a later mission to the facility would have to do some housecleaning the station was not designed for, and bring supplies if they can make room for them.

On the other hand, if there is any point to rehabbing Skylab 1, there is no doubt the Americans have the rockets to launch the missions to do it, unlike OTL. And to launch a special mission to push it back into stable orbit.

Or alternatively, if it is decided most cost-effective to terminate it, to send up a smaller rocket, not necessarily manned, to dock and deorbit it in a planned fashion, with none of the helpless suspense of OTL.

I rather hope that before Skylab II is launched, it is retrofitted with an eye to being able to maintain it indefinitely, with a system for bringing new supplies in and taking old garbage out on a sustainable basis, and to expand it.

Discussions on other threads have indicated that some of our resident space experts believe, based on the experience of Mir, that it's not really a good idea to hope to maintain a human-inhabitable structure in space forever, though. The thing gets worn down, crucial components fail, and soon after that patching the patches turns it into a deathtrap. I wonder though if that is the necessary fate of a well-enough-designed space station module, or if they can be made so as to be kept operational as long as one wishes. I suppose, even if someone goes over Skylab II with that goal in mind, it is too late to make it the one, but perhaps if there is an effort to keep it going a good long time, the lessons learned there will enable designers to make a permanent space station, one that can become the core of an ever-growing facility that will eventually acquire some permanent residents.

Be nice to keep Skylab 1 orbiting forever as a monument, but the problem of space junk is a real one. And I don't think it can be rehabbed to be a permanently useful facility, so I suppose it will have to be deorbited someday.

 

[nixonshead]

Skylab is there, physically in orbit--but I doubt you butterflied the Sun and its high activity later in the decade that accelerated its orbital deterioration.

More to the point, IIRC the Skylabs were not designed for resupply and the three crews used the supplies up, did they not? So a later mission to the facility would have to do some housecleaning the station was not designed for, and bring supplies if they can make room for them.

Fair points, but OTOH after the dramatic rescue and rapid improvisations of Skylab 2 I suspect finding a way to re-stock the station would be considered a relatively trivial job

 

[brovane]

Skylab is there, physically in orbit--but I doubt you butterflied the Sun and its high activity later in the decade that accelerated its orbital deterioration.

More to the point, IIRC the Skylabs were not designed for resupply and the three crews used the supplies up, did they not? So a later mission to the facility would have to do some housecleaning the station was not designed for, and bring supplies if they can make room for them.

On the other hand, if there is any point to rehabbing Skylab 1, there is no doubt the Americans have the rockets to launch the missions to do it, unlike OTL. And to launch a special mission to push it back into stable orbit.

Or alternatively, if it is decided most cost-effective to terminate it, to send up a smaller rocket, not necessarily manned, to dock and deorbit it in a planned fashion, with none of the helpless suspense of OTL.

I rather hope that before Skylab II is launched, it is retrofitted with an eye to being able to maintain it indefinitely, with a system for bringing new supplies in and taking old garbage out on a sustainable basis, and to expand it.

Discussions on other threads have indicated that some of our resident space experts believe, based on the experience of Mir, that it's not really a good idea to hope to maintain a human-inhabitable structure in space forever, though. The thing gets worn down, crucial components fail, and soon after that patching the patches turns it into a deathtrap. I wonder though if that is the necessary fate of a well-enough-designed space station module, or if they can be made so as to be kept operational as long as one wishes. I suppose, even if someone goes over Skylab II with that goal in mind, it is too late to make it the one, but perhaps if there is an effort to keep it going a good long time, the lessons learned there will enable designers to make a permanent space station, one that can become the core of an ever-growing facility that will eventually acquire some permanent residents.

Be nice to keep Skylab 1 orbiting forever as a monument, but the problem of space junk is a real one. And I don't think it can be rehabbed to be a permanently useful facility, so I suppose it will have to be deorbited someday.

Skylab wasn't built to be sustainable. Skylab used a S-IVB stage and converted the LH2 portion in a living space and the LOx part was left in a vacumn and was used for trash disposal. All supplies for all 3-crews where sent up at once including clothing etc because of limited space inside the CSM. In theory you could re-supply Skylab but is it worth it? Also parts of the space station where not built to last a long time like the altitude control system had limited fuel supply. How Skylab was handled in Eyes Turned Skyward is probably the most realistic outcome. By the end of Skylab 4 missions parts of station where already breaking down. Their is really no good reason to push the lifetime out much further than originally planned especially when you consider the cost of on orbit time to do repairs to something that wasn't made to be repaired in orbit. It is just cheaper to build a replacement and launch it with another Saturn V.

 

[AndyC]

Skylab 4 carried the third and final crew to the original Skylab Space Station. The CDR Gerald Parr was notable for being the Lunar Module pilot on Apollo 19. This earned him the title of being the first American Astronaut to visit both Moon and a Space Station.

Um - sorry to be picky, but:

The Apollo 12 mission .... November 21st 1969, Pete Conrad stepped onto the lunar surface, becoming the fourth person to walk on the Moon while Alan Bean followed him becoming the fifth.

11 days after Skylab was launched, the Skylab 2 crew, Pete Conrad (Cmdr), Paul Weitz (CMP), and Joe Kerwin (Science Pilot) launched atop a Saturn IB to try and repair the station before anything else, vital if it was to be inhabited at all. Following a visual inspection and soft-dock with the station (as so to avoid station keeping while they ate), they undocked and manoeuvred to the jammed solar array to try and pry it loose with a 10ft hooked pole. Unfortunately, it failed and more of the irreplaceable manoeuvring propellant had been consumed in the attempt.

After a difficult hard-dock with Skylab (taking 9 attempts) that certainly failed to improve the mood, they set to work deploying the collapsible parasol through a small scientific airlock to act as a sunshade, this succeeded and the temperature inside the station soon dropped to tolerable levels. It would be two weeks before a second EVA was conducted to try and free the remaining main solar array (since with only the ATM solar cells, the station would not have enough power for the Skylab 3 and 4 missions), which was successful in this instance, also testing the both nerves of Conrad and Kerwin along with the strength of their safety tethers, as the sudden deployment of the array flung them from the hull of the station.

With the station largely brought to a workable condition, they could now focus on the primary medical, Earth, and Solar science experiments, with over 29,000 frames of film of the Sun. After 28 days (a record for NASA), they returned home with the record for the greatest total mass docked in space at over 90,000 Kg, and Skylab fit enough to support the remaining assigned crews.

As 1973 neared its end, the NASA Skylab Programme began to pick up the pace with Al Bean (Cmdr), Jack Lousma (CMP), and Owen Garriot (Science Pilot) launched on the Skylab 3 mission in the late November of 1973. While the flight performed well during the Ascent-to-Orbit, as they approached the Skylab Station, one of the thruster quads in the Apollo SM developed a leak, and while the Apollo Spacecraft was able to safely dock with the station, the troubleshooting into the problem was continued. Then a few days later, a second thruster quad began to leak which raised concern in Mission Control leading to (for the first time) an Apollo CSM being rolled onto the Launch Pad for a rescue mission. It was later determined that even with the failed quads, the safe manoeuvring of the Skylab 3 CSM was still possible, leading to the rescue mission not being launched.

Over the course of their 59-day mission, they collected a wide range of experiments data, with particular emphasis on medical research. The previous mission had photographs of the crew that showed the “puffy face syndrome” which saw an increase in the tests to determine the nature of the headward shift in body fluids, resulting in measurements of torso and limb girths to supplement the calf girth and leg volume measurements that Skylab 2 had conducted. Further supplemented by arterial blood flow, haemoglobin and urine mass measurements alongside photographs taken before flight, and over the course of the mission to gain new insight into the fluid balance and distribution in microgravity environments.


...

By the end of their mission, they had set a new NASA record for in-flight duration, just a week shy of the Soviet record, and their decision to use the docked CSM, even with its failed quad thrusters paid off as they safely returned just a very few hundred miles off the Western Coast of California.

Sorry!
That said, I'm really enjoying the timeline; thought I should flag it up so you can edit it. It doesn't seem fundamental to the story.

 

[SpaceGeek]

I have edited it now

 

[Nanobot5770]

Wow, I just discovered this timeline yesterday and spent most of my spare time catching up with it.

What a great project! I like the immense realism factor you guys try to put in there.
With all those PODs I can honestly believe that the SU managed to beat to Americans.

But the thing I like most about all of this is that no nation has a uber-program now. The Soviets have their flaws, as do the Americans.

Please continue, I can't wait to see how things will turn out with the moon bases.

 

[SpaceGeek]

This is a catagorization of what I believe the public opinion of the United States would roughly be ITTL.

August 1962: Once again the Soviet Union have leapfrogged America with Vostok 3 and 4. It's obvious that the USSR is performing not only 4 day mission but have already mastered the ability to rendezvous in LEO. While John Glenn remains in the National memory in a way that cannot be forgotten, Crossfield's flight and the following flight of Wally Schirra fade into the background.

August 1963:
A year after they're last stunning success the Soviets have done it again. Another in space rendezvous (although still no docking), an eight day record duration flight and a women in Space! All this after the last Mercury-Atlas mission by Gordon Cooper. They're so far ahead it's looking like we may never catch up. Eight days is unco-incidentally the minimum time needed to land on the Moon and return.

October 1964:
It's been 18 months since the last day-long Mercury mission. The Soviets astonish the world with a three-person orbital spacecraft, the Voskhod. Rumors circulate that this is their equivelant to Apollo. An American victory to the Moon is looking less and less likely as the Gemini is delayed further and further to 1965. The Americans can't even get into space while the Soviets are already moving on to their lunar-ship.

March 1965: In another breakthrough the Soviets launch Voskhod 2 and perform the first spacewalk. It's obvious the Soviets will be first to the Moon now. And who knows how far along they'll be by the time we get there. We can't even get into space and they are achieving endless space shots and now this.

March-September 1965:
With Gemini 3, 4 and 5 we have performed Extra-Vehicular activities ourselves and even caught up to them with an eight day mission. We've finally tied up the Space Race.

November 1965: (Voskhod 3)
The Soviets aren't lying down. Now they're doing an 18 day missions, more spacewalks and can even generate artificial gravity. The space race is very close but the Soviet Union is still ahead.

December 1965 (Gemini 6A and 7)
With the first rendezvous and a two week long spaceflight we appear to have tied the Space Race. It's close and it's a tossup who's going to be first. It might be us it might be them.

February-September 1966
The Russians don't stand a chance. We're practically performing a spacewalk, rendezvous or docking every month or so! Meanwhile it's as if the Reds have dropped out completely. Have they given up?

September-November 1966
The Russians already have an N1 Moonrocket flying on test flights and now they have their advanced "Soyuz" flying too. The November flight of Gemini 12 and the promise of an Apollo flight soon mitigates it slightly. The USSR is still ahead and it looks like they might get their first afterall. The rumors are comfirmed, the Soviets are developing a Moon program.

1967
January: Apollo 1 is a tragic failure, having never left the ground! Oh, the price of spaceflight is high indeed.

March-May-July-September
The Soviet Union has been launching mysterious probes to the Moon called "Zond" that are rumored to be test launches of their future manned lunar ship. The details are all classified and it's quite mysterious. Meanwhile they have launched their stunning N1 Moonrocket into orbit on another test launch in July. And now more Soyuz missions, rendezvous, docking, crew exchange spacewalk. The Apollo 1 accident has delayed NASA significantly. We're falling behind.

November 1967
The Saturn V launches in an awesome televised launch. We're closing the gap but it's going to be difficult to beat the Russians given how close they already are.

December 1967
The Soviets have beaten the Americans to fly around the Moon. In a few months or a year (1968) they'll probabley be landing. No doubt about it. Meanwhile the US lags behind without a single Manned Apollo launch. I wonder how far they'll be by the time we catch up.

February 1968
A second Soviet circumlunar launches and not a single manned Apollo launches (or even a Saturn V launch). Apollo 5 shows we're trying, but let's be real it's going to be a long time before we launch. The race is pretty much lost at this point. The Soviets will beat us, the question is when.

April 1968
Apollo 6 is nice but it doesn't matter as a Soviet lunar landing is imminent. They've now launched a third Manned lunar mission. I wonder when the Americans will reach the Moon. Probabley around 1970 at the rate of progress we are experiencing.

 

[SAVORYapple]

And after the soviet landing.....

This may dampen american exceptionalism

 

[fasquardon]

It occurs to me that the early 70s are going to be a turbulent time for America - the Vietnam war, the dollar getting forced off of gold, an oil crisis and in this TL, the Soviets beating America to the Moon, all within a few years. The 70s are going to be an even more angst ridden time for Americans. Which makes me wonder what will be happening culturally.

fasquardon

 

[Bahamut-255]

Sorry for the wait everyone, but RL has a habit of doing that. But in any case, update time!


While NASA was busy with Skylab and it’s LESA Development Programmes, the Soviet Union continued to take advantage of the window they had to push on with their own Manned Lunar Landings. Again, they were aiming for another record, by landing at the farthest point on the Moon with regards to the Earth to date, namely the Korolev Crater, on the Lunar Far Side. Mishin would later admit that L3-8 had a particular emotional relevance for him, given its name.

The April of 1974 saw the N1 carrying the LOK Orbiter clear its launch pad and enter LEO with little drama, save for the first Block A engine shutdown being just over two seconds early, traced to a simple programming error the following day. That said, they were still on their way to the Moon to rendezvous with the LK that waited for them there.

The landing, again was textbook, with the years since their first landing being having allowed them to refine their LOK, LK, and all the various stages of the N1 and L3 to the point where they could be called mature.

This mission, however, had its own unique dangers. Being on the Moon’s Far Side, the mission commander could not directly communicate with the mission controllers on Earth, leaving him dependant on the Orbiting LOK to relay his findings and condition to them and send instructions from them as well. This meant that if anything were to go wrong, it would take some time for word to reach anyone on Earth. But given the short surface stay time, along with the growing confidence in the reliability of their equipment, this was deemed an acceptable risk by the mission planners.

The 25-hour surface stay was taken up by 2 EVAs spent collecting rock and dust samples along with a number of photographs of the Lunar Surface and a sky that completely lacked any image of Earth to be taken. Of particular interest to the geologists on Earth would be how these samples would compare to samples from the Lunar Near Side, given just how different the surface was between the two hemispheres. What marked these EVAs apart from the others was the lack of surface experiments to be continued following the Manned Landing, since there would be no effective means of transmitting the data back to Earth, the bulk of the mass savings used to gather more samples for return and analysis on Earth.

Following their return, even as their mission made the desired headlines, they were undergoing psychiatric analysis to determine how they found the experience of total loss of communications with Earth for an extended time. While Soviet scientists were studying the returned samples and comparing them with their earlier collection, determining the similarities and differences that they held.

Even as they were continuing their N1-L3 missions, work on Zarya 3 and their own Extended Lunar Bases continued, the latter being dependant on the Block S and R Stages that would be vital to making their plans succeed. The RD-56 engine that would power them had already completed its static tests in single and six-engine forms while the Block R was ready for its first flight test, atop an N11.

The test launch would use a basic communications satellite, deliberately massed to be greater than what the LOX/Kerosene Block-D could take to GTO, but within the limits of the LOX/LH2 Block R. Unusually for a Soviet test flight, this first test of the Block R went quite well, since despite the Apogee being slightly less that what was required, was well within the payload’s own ability to compensate for. While not perfect, it was seen as good for their first attempt and TsKBEM’s standing within the Soviet Hierarchy wasn’t harmed by it.

The Lunar Surface Habitat and Lunar Supplies Craft, however, were experiencing a more protracted development, and it now appeared that they would not be ready until at least early-1976. Even with the greater TLI payload capability offered by the Block S and Block R upper stages, they still needed two of them just to send what would be needed to support a crew of two for 30 days while still ensuring that they could do a lot of useful work while they were on the Moon. On top of that, the lessons being learned from their own Zarya Programme were telling them of the need to schedule in rest days for the crew plus the need to adjust the design of certain systems to enhance their durability. They were also aware of the issues surrounding the Lunar Dust (from the NASA J-Missions which made the problem clear), and had to factor in an airlock and suit storage to minimise the effects of it.

Then there were the issues of the LOK and LK, unmodified, they were extremely ill-equipped to handle the extended time in Lunar Orbit and long Lunar Surface duration, and had to be modified to cope with the new demands. Requiring either up-rating the Block G and D (which would be cheaper than the LOX/LH2 Block S and R) or using the Block S and R (Which permitted a greater mass budget, but risked LH2 boil-off losses beyond what they could allow for the LOK).


EDIT: http://www.astrosurf.com/lunascan/farside/images/farside-contour-map-gray2800.jpg

The image itself is way too large to just stick into the post, but is the best Lunar Far Side map that I could find to point out all the key features of it. Korolev Crater is the large one slightly to the right from the centre of this map.

 

[Bahamut-255]

It occurs to me that the early 70s are going to be a turbulent time for America - the Vietnam war, the dollar getting forced off of gold, an oil crisis and in this TL, the Soviets beating America to the Moon, all within a few years. The 70s are going to be an even more angst ridden time for Americans. Which makes me wonder what will be happening culturally.

fasquardon

The US is certainly going to feel like the Underdogs here, as the USSR maintains their perception of being in the lead. I suspect certain circles will be treating the Space Race less as a Race, and more of a Marathon, with the last push being the one that counts. Though I have reason to believe that they're in the minority for most of the 70s.

 

[Michel Van]

Then there were the issues of the LOK and LK, unmodified, they were extremely ill-equipped to handle the extended time in Lunar Orbit and long Lunar Surface duration, and had to be modified to cope with the new demands. Requiring either up-rating the Block G and D (which would be cheaper than the LOX/LH2 Block S and R) or using the Block S and R (Which permitted a greater mass budget, but risked LH2 boil-off losses beyond what they could allow for the LOK).

The Soviet look into that problem and came to this solution: L3M
it's eliminate the LOK and LK, by landing a Soyuz capsule with 3 meter ø on return stage on the moon.
the Mission arctecture would same, but they rendezvous with advance Block D stage in Lunar orbit (launch by second N1).
the L3M is operational for 3 cosmonauts up to 16 days.

 

[Pesterfield]

You mention a communication satellite, would it have been possible to put one in lunar orbit to handle cosmonaut and experiment communications?

 

[The Sandman]

Would it be possible to mitigate at least some of the payload issue the Soviets are facing by using a space station in Earth orbit as an assembly platform for outbound spacecraft?

 

[Athelstane]

One thing is clear

This amped up Cold War rivalry is paying big dividends for science.

And space geeks who've always wanted to see a LESA base take flesh, or Soviet LK landers kicking up lunar regolith.

 

[Shevek23]

You mention a communication satellite, would it have been possible to put one in lunar orbit to handle cosmonaut and experiment communications?

The problem with any satellite in low Lunar orbit is that the Lunar mascons perturb their orbits. It is bad enough that they will be changing the inclination of the orbits so their ground tracks would be rather unpredictable, but I think the killer is that they also change the eccentricity and even total orbital energy, so that sooner or later the orbit intersects the surface.

If you go higher I imagine the problem diminishes, with a much lower probability it will actually crash, and more slowly changing inclination. But then the orbit is slow so the times a single satellite will be over the horizon are longer; you'd want a whole constellation.

I would think, with both parties in the Space Marathon trying to come up with new firsts to outdo the other, and Moonbases therefore on the agenda, that a lot of attention would be on the first two Earth-Moon Lagrange "points" by now. EL-1 and -2 are not close to the Moon, being about as far off as geosynchronous Earth satellites orbit Earth--that is, roughly a tenth the distance from Earth to Moon, or somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 km away! But of course geosynch satellites are state of the art for both sides of the space race by now, and it is actually more costly in delta-V terms to launch one to an equatorial orbit than it is to send something to Lunar space! So either the Russians or the Americans, or both, ought to be able to send something comparable in size to their current geosynch satellites to either L1 or L2. In fact if one uses a rather slow orbit it can be quite economical to reach L2--the maneuver involves swinging very close to the Moon and doing a low-delta-V burn there.

Neither target is a true "point" of course since the Lunar orbit is elliptical; they too oscillate in and out on the radius from Earth to Moon in step with the two bodies nearing and getting farther from each other. Of interest is the large family of quasi-stable "orbits" around the points. Long before the Apollo missions were completed an American analyst named Farquahar proposed an L2 base, and wanted it in a very wide orbit about the "point" so that it would almost always be visible from Earth, yet give a view mainly of the Lunar Farside. Such an object could be a simple comsat, or a developed manned base, or between these extremes an outpost that might be sporadically manned. If it were up to me, I'd put the heavy base, if any, in a tighter orbit but maintain a constellation of three or more comsats in the wide one, to relay to it. For coverage of the Nearside, of course I'd recommend something at L1; the benefits of being in wider orbits would be less there so it would orbit quite near the nominal point.

A pretty big, powerful comsat at L1 ought to be able to pick up even modest signals from the Lunar surface quite clearly, and then powerfully relay them to ground stations and/or a network of comsats in Earth orbit--at the range it would be doing that even geosynch satellites will be reasonably near Earth itself so one beam can cover the whole constellation. That covers Nearside; something comparable at L2 can relay through wider-orbit satellites.

This strikes me as far superior to trying to set up any satellites close to the Lunar surface; it will be much easier for people and machines on the Moon to point their antennae at what is basically a fixed point in the sky than to acquire contact with something moving across it.

I'm quite surprised that nothing has been stationed at either "point" yet OTL.

Neither is truly stable, so some maneuvering propellant will be needed for station keeping; once that is gone the craft will inevitably drift away. But something close to the Moon would use up a comparable amount of propellant much sooner, and need to expend a lot to get into orbit in the first place.

I keep meaning to look into an alternate orbital strategy to get to the Moon, and especially to either Point, based on the realization that a Hohmann orbit (that is, an ellipse that takes one precisely from a given lower orbit to a higher one, requiring two burns to transfer from one near-circular orbit to the other) is not necessarily the cheapest path. When the two orbits are relatively far apart in radius, it can be cheaper, in terms of total delta-V, to go far outward of the target (assuming one desires to go outward), there do a second burn to get into another orbit--an inward Hohmann orbit from the outer radius to the target--and finally a third as one approaches the target object. I suspect such an approach to L2 could yield a very low delta-V indeed, perhaps superior to Farquahar's one that swings past the Moon. And similarly for L1--initial shove from LEO to a point below L1, burn to a second transfer orbit that swings up to the region of L1, then a small burn to circularize--unlike L2 there is no great competition for a superior orbit.

These trick 3 burn orbits will take literally months for a spacecraft, anyway clearly the one to L2 will; the other one has to take at least a half month. Too slow for manned missions, but great for stockpiling equipment such as comsats, and perhaps even supplies, at either point.

I keep meaning to work them out; it's pretty straightforward in principle, but a bit tedious in practice I fear.

 

[Michel Van]

a another Alternative proposed for Apollo back side landings
was the use of S-IVB stage as communication relay
instead to crash the stage on lunar surface, it past the moon and installed radio system provide Communication with Ground control and LM on lunar back side
advantage: Easy to install system and low cost
disadvantage: communication time is limits do time the drifting S-IVB is out of reach for Radio equipment.