Will smartphone ownership become a de facto requirement?

[kphoger]

Of course that is fairly optimistic thought. Key can get damaged - opening beer bottles is one possible cause.

Uh.... yeah....  OK, I guess....  Personally, the only way I've had a key stop opening the door was when they key got bent from using it in the messed-up keyhole too many times.

Loosing something that passively sits in the pocket all day is also possible.
It may be less common thing, though.

Again, not what he was talking about.  He was talking about it being in your pocket the whole time, then not working when you pull it out (the key, not the banana).

Then, there are cars with chargers in case you bring up car key into discussion.

Which only works if you have a car.  Which I didn't when I lived in that apartment I mentioned.

My point is, if you are using a physical object for access - you can misplace or damage it, or it can be stollen. GRegardless of what that object is.  Pin code can be forgotten, fingerprint damaged by minor - or not so minor - trauma; retina... ok, let me skip that.
So things are tough without a plan B!

Yes.  It's just that the likelihood of needing that Plan B seems like it would increase when you switch to smartphone-only entry.

[J N Winkler]

If I am about to leave my house and my phone is, I don't necessarily know this before I leave the house (unknowingly locking myself out) because a dead phone looks and feels the same as a live one.

"maybe you should check your phone before you bla bla bla"  Yeah, but sometimes I don't because I'm not thinking about it. Why should I be locked out of my house for that? How does adding yet another thing to check on before leaving actually benefit me?

I'd also add that if the phone is having end-of-life battery issues, checking it before you leave won't help, because such phones tend to crash unpredictably when reported remaining battery life is a fairly high percentage.  My last phone frequently crashed at a point where it would report well over 60% battery life remaining as soon as it was plugged back in.

Having to defend a certain increment of remaining battery life to be sure you can get back into your own dwelling, get a ride back home (using a TNC app or a public transit E-ticket), etc. also limits how much you can use your phone when you are out and about with few or uncertain recharging opportunities.

For these reasons alone, I greatly prefer to have metal keys for my own front door, my car, etc., even though I recognize they have their own security shortcomings.  This tends to be less of an issue for good-quality house locks, but apartment complexes tend to use very few distinct key combinations, meaning that the same key often opens multiple apartments in the same complex.  When I lived in a high-rise apartment building on a short-term lease, I once got off the elevator on the wrong floor (I had hit the wrong button in the elevator--a classic "typo," only involving gross motor movement), walked past the same number of doors that I would have to reach my apartment on the correct floor, put my key in the lock, turned it, and realized my mistake only when I saw all of the furniture appeared to have moved.  Fortunately the tenants were out; similar incidents today often have fatal consequences.

I'll be honest and don't understand why it is for others.

I can.  Taking a phone along is a matter of habit formation and even when a habit is well-established, there are occasions when your brain zigs when it should zag and the habitual behavior does not occur.

I routinely take my phone with me when I drive somewhere only because I use a GPS logger to track mileage for the daily driver, whose odometer has not worked since 2013.  Even so, in a typical year I have one or two instances (which I document) of travel not being logged because I forgot to take my phone or to launch the logger app (both habitual behaviors).

Besides the aspect of habit, many people (myself included) use ballistic phone cases, which afford much better protection for the phone (thus cutting down greatly on expenses for insurance, repair, and replacement) but make it more difficult to carry on one's person.  When I am out running errands, for example, I tend to keep my phone locked up in the trunk of my car unless it is so cold the battery is likely to freeze.

Right now I am in a tug-of-war with Dillons, which would like me to install their digital coupon app on my phone.  If I did so, I could simply scan a QR code off the shelf sticker to load the digital coupon when I discover a discounted item I missed while going through the weekly ad and the coupons online.  However, unless I am wearing a jacket and thus can keep the phone in one of the pockets, it's a major inconvenience to have it with me in the store.  It's too large for my trouser pocket, clipping it to my waist doesn't work if I'm wearing my shirt untucked (as I often do in the summer), and laying it down in the cart invites casual theft.

[1995hoo]

Yes.  It's just that the likelihood of needing that Plan B seems like it would increase when you switch to smartphone-only entry.

A novel called CyberStorm by Matthew Mather presents an interesting take on the problems that can occur when you rely too much on technology for mundane things. Somewhat interesting read, though the characters were mostly just the vehicle for the author to get his point across (similar in that respect to Shuttle Down by Lee Correy, which tells the story of what happens when Atlantis makes an emergency landing on Easter Island). If you're interested in the issue of needing a "Plan B" or similar, you might find it an interesting read.

[kphoger]

I'll be honest and don't understand why it is for others.

I can.  Taking a phone along is a matter of habit formation and even when a habit is well-established, there are occasions when your brain zigs when it should zag and the habitual behavior does not occur.

I routinely take my phone with me when I drive somewhere only because I use a GPS logger to track mileage for the daily driver, whose odometer has not worked since 2013.  Even so, in a typical year I have one or two instances (which I document) of travel not being logged because I forgot to take my phone or to launch the logger app (both habitual behaviors).

There are also scenarios in which I don't take my phone along at all.  For example, if I'm going to the gym, I generally leave my phone at home.  Same with going for a bike ride or a walk.

[kalvado]

Yes.  It's just that the likelihood of needing that Plan B seems like it would increase when you switch to smartphone-only entry.

A novel called CyberStorm by Matthew Mather presents an interesting take on the problems that can occur when you rely too much on technology for mundane things. Somewhat interesting read, though the characters were mostly just the vehicle for the author to get his point across (similar in that respect to Shuttle Down by Lee Correy, which tells the story of what happens when Atlantis makes an emergency landing on Easter Island). If you're interested in the issue of needing a "Plan B" or similar, you might find it an interesting read.

I guess we're too used to non-technological issues and don't take them that dearly. Yet spare tire still sits in the trunk!
As for plan B, I remember at least one of my old leases specifically talking about what needs to be done in case of lost keys (including calling a complex employee who lived in the apartment as a last resort)

[J N Winkler]

There are also scenarios in which I don't take my phone along at all.  For example, if I'm going to the gym, I generally leave my phone at home.  Same with going for a bike ride or a walk.

I definitely don't take my phone with me when I go for a walk.  If not for GPS logging, I would likely leave it at home most days I go to the gym, as I usually don't need it with me on the floor and it can be a hassle to stow it securely, especially given the theft problems at the downtown Y (lockers get broken into on a routine basis, and about once or twice a year I hear about someone cracking open one of the key boxes next to the reception desk).

[abefroman329]

Welp, I checked the callbox briefly this morning, and I could feel two slots on the underside that would accommodate a large key, about the size of those passkeys the fire department has.

Initially I thought maybe there was a way to grant first responders a passcode to unlock the door, but heaven knows what the failsafe would be.

I also noticed that the callbox is somehow related to a partnership with Amazon, and maybe they dropped support for the fobs ("what will the poors do?" is not a question "disruptors" tend to ask).

There are, I think, four other locks in the building that require a smartphone: The back entry door, which leads to a breezeway; the door at the other end of the breezeway (that actually goes into the building); the laundry room; and the fitness room/mailroom.  I always bring my smartphone to the laundry room, since I can pay to use the washers and dryers with an app, which will then alert me when the cycles are done, so no great loss there.

[abefroman329]

There are also scenarios in which I don't take my phone along at all.  For example, if I'm going to the gym, I generally leave my phone at home.  Same with going for a bike ride or a walk.

I definitely don't take my phone with me when I go for a walk.  If not for GPS logging, I would likely leave it at home most days I go to the gym, as I usually don't need it with me on the floor and it can be a hassle to stow it securely, especially given the theft problems at the downtown Y (lockers get broken into on a routine basis, and about once or twice a year I hear about someone cracking open one of the key boxes next to the reception desk).

I leave my phone in the car all the time if I'm running errands and don't need it for anything.  It's nice to go off the grid for 10-15 minutes.

[1995hoo]

.... Yet spare tire still sits in the trunk!
....

My wife's car actually doesn't have a spare tire, just a compressor to inflate a flat tire–which proved useless the one time she had an issue because the issue was a punctured sidewall that resulted in us to having to get the car towed.

[JayhawkCO]

I'll be honest and don't understand why it is for others.

I can.  Taking a phone along is a matter of habit formation and even when a habit is well-established, there are occasions when your brain zigs when it should zag and the habitual behavior does not occur.

I routinely take my phone with me when I drive somewhere only because I use a GPS logger to track mileage for the daily driver, whose odometer has not worked since 2013.  Even so, in a typical year I have one or two instances (which I document) of travel not being logged because I forgot to take my phone or to launch the logger app (both habitual behaviors).

There are also scenarios in which I don't take my phone along at all.  For example, if I'm going to the gym, I generally leave my phone at home.  Same with going for a bike ride or a walk.

I find, though, that if one NEEDS to bring it with them, i.e. if that's how you get into your home, then the habit gets reinforced rather easily. If you haven't locked yourself out of your home by forgetting your keys, it's probably because you remember that you'll need it to get back in your home. If your phone becomes your key, then similarly, you won't forget it.

If I go for a bike ride or a walk, I very well might not bring my phone or my keys. But I'll leave the door unlocked so that I don't need to.

[skluth]

I generally take my phone with me when I work out because I prefer to listen to podcasts or my own music rather than the crap pumped out at the gym. I do the same when I drive. It sits on the charger at home but I take it when I leave the house. I'm not sure I'd like it if I had to use it for my house or car key. But I'm fine to use it for my Costco membership, riding the LA Metro, and checking into the gym with their respective apps. It beats keeping a stack of one-use cars in my wallet.

[kphoger]

I find, though, that if one NEEDS to bring it with them, i.e. if that's how you get into your home, then the habit gets reinforced rather easily. If you haven't locked yourself out of your home by forgetting your keys, it's probably because you remember that you'll need it to get back in your home.

When I first moved from rural western Kansas to Chicago, I was in the habit of occasionally leaving my car keys in the car.  (For those of you who have never lived in a small town, yes, people actually do that.)  Then, one day, I locked my car with the car still running.  I had to pay the night rate for that locksmith.  Lesson learned.

[kkt]

A novel called CyberStorm by Matthew Mather presents an interesting take on the problems that can occur when you rely too much on technology for mundane things. Somewhat interesting read, though the characters were mostly just the vehicle for the author to get his point across (similar in that respect to Shuttle Down by Lee Correy, which tells the story of what happens when Atlantis makes an emergency landing on Easter Island). If you're interested in the issue of needing a "Plan B" or similar, you might find it an interesting read.

Oh, wow, in response to this post I discovered on Wikipedia that Easter Island really was an alternate landing site for the Shuttle, and NASA paid to lengthen their runway so it would be usable with the Shuttle orbiters' dead-stick landings.  That also made the airport usable by jumbo jets, which have greatly increased the island's tourism.

[kalvado]

A novel called CyberStorm by Matthew Mather presents an interesting take on the problems that can occur when you rely too much on technology for mundane things. Somewhat interesting read, though the characters were mostly just the vehicle for the author to get his point across (similar in that respect to Shuttle Down by Lee Correy, which tells the story of what happens when Atlantis makes an emergency landing on Easter Island). If you're interested in the issue of needing a "Plan B" or similar, you might find it an interesting read.

Oh, wow, in response to this post I discovered on Wikipedia that Easter Island really was an alternate landing site for the Shuttle, and NASA paid to lengthen their runway so it would be usable with the Shuttle orbiters' dead-stick landings.  That also made the airport usable by jumbo jets, which have greatly increased the island's tourism.

I wonder what kind of trajectory would bring the shuttle to easter island.  Was that for California polar launches? Also given paranoiac rules for available runway...   Scheduling effects would be non-trivial.   

[kkt]

A novel called CyberStorm by Matthew Mather presents an interesting take on the problems that can occur when you rely too much on technology for mundane things. Somewhat interesting read, though the characters were mostly just the vehicle for the author to get his point across (similar in that respect to Shuttle Down by Lee Correy, which tells the story of what happens when Atlantis makes an emergency landing on Easter Island). If you're interested in the issue of needing a "Plan B" or similar, you might find it an interesting read.

Oh, wow, in response to this post I discovered on Wikipedia that Easter Island really was an alternate landing site for the Shuttle, and NASA paid to lengthen their runway so it would be usable with the Shuttle orbiters' dead-stick landings.  That also made the airport usable by jumbo jets, which have greatly increased the island's tourism.

I wonder what kind of trajectory would bring the shuttle to easter island.  Was that for California polar launches? Also given paranoiac rules for available runway...   Scheduling effects would be non-trivial.   

Yes, I think it was mainly for the California launches... which ended up discontinued.

[1995hoo]

A novel called CyberStorm by Matthew Mather presents an interesting take on the problems that can occur when you rely too much on technology for mundane things. Somewhat interesting read, though the characters were mostly just the vehicle for the author to get his point across (similar in that respect to Shuttle Down by Lee Correy, which tells the story of what happens when Atlantis makes an emergency landing on Easter Island). If you're interested in the issue of needing a "Plan B" or similar, you might find it an interesting read.

Oh, wow, in response to this post I discovered on Wikipedia that Easter Island really was an alternate landing site for the Shuttle, and NASA paid to lengthen their runway so it would be usable with the Shuttle orbiters' dead-stick landings.  That also made the airport usable by jumbo jets, which have greatly increased the island's tourism.

I wonder what kind of trajectory would bring the shuttle to easter island.  Was that for California polar launches? Also given paranoiac rules for available runway...   Scheduling effects would be non-trivial.   

Correct. NASA and the Air Force planned to launch the shuttle (Discovery was to be the one primary dedicated to Defense Department use) from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Typical launches would have been southbound over the Pacific Ocean, which would have meant Easter Island would have been one of the only landing sites available in case of an emergency. Southbound launches from Florida were deemed unacceptable due both to the need to overfly heavily populated areas of South Florida and the political problem of the solid rocket boosters potentially coming down within Cuban territory.

No Vandenberg launches ever took place, of course. STS-62-A was planned for 1986 but was delayed and, ultimately, cancelled after the Challenger accident. It's unclear whether a Vandenberg launch would have succeeded, either. A polar-orbit launch doesn't get a gravity assist, so the shuttle's payload capacity would have been reduced. To make up for that, NASA and the Defense Department planned to use filament-wound solid rocket boosters that would have been lighter than the normal ones. There was also concern about vibrations from the surrounding mountains and increased icing due to the cold weather. One analysis estimated a 25% chance of catastrophic failure on any given West Coast shuttle launch.

The book I mentioned, Shuttle Down, was written by a NASA employee under a pen name as what Piers Anthony once called a "message novel." He was concerned that NASA wasn't taking all sorts of issues related to the potential for emergency landings seriously and he wanted to show what sort of problems they'd face if they didn't shape up.

The potential for polar-orbit launches, incidentally, was the reason for the shuttle having the winged design it used. The Air Force wanted to be able to launch a shuttle to retrieve a satellite (or steal a Soviet satellite) and then land back at its launch site within a single orbit or two. But the Earth's rotation meant the shuttle needed sufficient cross-range to do that because the landing site would have moved some distance to the east by the time the shuttle completed an orbit. Makes me wonder to what extent the Columbia accident was due, in part, to the unrealized plans for polar-orbit missions–might the wings not have been needed, or at least not in the same configuration, had polar launches not been planned?

[Rothman]

There are also scenarios in which I don't take my phone along at all.  For example, if I'm going to the gym, I generally leave my phone at home.  Same with going for a bike ride or a walk.

I definitely don't take my phone with me when I go for a walk.  If not for GPS logging, I would likely leave it at home most days I go to the gym, as I usually don't need it with me on the floor and it can be a hassle to stow it securely, especially given the theft problems at the downtown Y (lockers get broken into on a routine basis, and about once or twice a year I hear about someone cracking open one of the key boxes next to the reception desk).

Invest in a better lock.

[Rothman]

I find, though, that if one NEEDS to bring it with them, i.e. if that's how you get into your home, then the habit gets reinforced rather easily. If you haven't locked yourself out of your home by forgetting your keys, it's probably because you remember that you'll need it to get back in your home.

When I first moved from rural western Kansas to Chicago, I was in the habit of occasionally leaving my car keys in the car.  (For those of you who have never lived in a small town, yes, people actually do that.)  Then, one day, I locked my car with the car still running.  I had to pay the night rate for that locksmith.  Lesson learned.

Heh.  Yeah, my brother got into that habit and his car got taken for a joyride.

[kphoger]

When I first moved from rural western Kansas to Chicago, I was in the habit of occasionally leaving my car keys in the car.  (For those of you who have never lived in a small town, yes, people actually do that.)  Then, one day, I locked my car with the car still running.  I had to pay the night rate for that locksmith.  Lesson learned.

Heh.  Yeah, my brother got into that habit and his car got taken for a joyride.

At high school basketball games, there were usually long periods of time when the pep band didn't play.  So I'd sometimes duck out into the parking lot, find someone's car with the keys still inside, and go park it at the opposite end of the parking lot–just so they'd wonder where their car went when they walked outside after the game.

I also remember having to run home for something during a hometown track meet, but I didn't have my car.  I asked a classmate who was doing long jump at the time, and he said I could borrow his pickup–the keys are in the ignition.  Worked out great for me.  Well, once I managed to back out of the space, that is.  The only stickshift cars I had ever driven were Toyota sedans, and his pickup was a 1981 Ram.  Totally different clutch action!

[kalvado]

A novel called CyberStorm by Matthew Mather presents an interesting take on the problems that can occur when you rely too much on technology for mundane things. Somewhat interesting read, though the characters were mostly just the vehicle for the author to get his point across (similar in that respect to Shuttle Down by Lee Correy, which tells the story of what happens when Atlantis makes an emergency landing on Easter Island). If you're interested in the issue of needing a "Plan B" or similar, you might find it an interesting read.

Oh, wow, in response to this post I discovered on Wikipedia that Easter Island really was an alternate landing site for the Shuttle, and NASA paid to lengthen their runway so it would be usable with the Shuttle orbiters' dead-stick landings.  That also made the airport usable by jumbo jets, which have greatly increased the island's tourism.

I wonder what kind of trajectory would bring the shuttle to easter island.  Was that for California polar launches? Also given paranoiac rules for available runway...   Scheduling effects would be non-trivial.   

Correct. NASA and the Air Force planned to launch the shuttle (Discovery was to be the one primary dedicated to Defense Department use) from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Typical launches would have been southbound over the Pacific Ocean, which would have meant Easter Island would have been one of the only landing sites available in case of an emergency. Southbound launches from Florida were deemed unacceptable due both to the need to overfly heavily populated areas of South Florida and the political problem of the solid rocket boosters potentially coming down within Cuban territory.

No Vandenberg launches ever took place, of course. STS-62-A was planned for 1986 but was delayed and, ultimately, cancelled after the Challenger accident. It's unclear whether a Vandenberg launch would have succeeded, either. A polar-orbit launch doesn't get a gravity assist, so the shuttle's payload capacity would have been reduced. To make up for that, NASA and the Defense Department planned to use filament-wound solid rocket boosters that would have been lighter than the normal ones. There was also concern about vibrations from the surrounding mountains and increased icing due to the cold weather. One analysis estimated a 25% chance of catastrophic failure on any given West Coast shuttle launch.

The book I mentioned, Shuttle Down, was written by a NASA employee under a pen name as what Piers Anthony once called a "message novel." He was concerned that NASA wasn't taking all sorts of issues related to the potential for emergency landings seriously and he wanted to show what sort of problems they'd face if they didn't shape up.

The potential for polar-orbit launches, incidentally, was the reason for the shuttle having the winged design it used. The Air Force wanted to be able to launch a shuttle to retrieve a satellite (or steal a Soviet satellite) and then land back at its launch site within a single orbit or two. But the Earth's rotation meant the shuttle needed sufficient cross-range to do that because the landing site would have moved some distance to the east by the time the shuttle completed an orbit. Makes me wonder to what extent the Columbia accident was due, in part, to the unrealized plans for polar-orbit missions–might the wings not have been needed, or at least not in the same configuration, had polar launches not been planned?

Intercepting satellite on a single orbit flight is  a joke at best.
As for wings, runway landing requires wings no matter what. Shuttle flaring capability already was somewhere  between those of  steam iron and a brick. And turbine engines were ditched pretty early in development process.
Landing without wings... Parachutes is pretty much the only option.  And without flare aiming at a landing site is pretty difficult, if possible at all.

Where DoD actually destroyed the shuttle was in payload requirements (15 tons at 104% and 30 tons at 109% IIRC). That shaped entire program into a monstrous thing.

[J N Winkler]

Invest in a better lock.

Within the downtown Y it is not really up to me.  The best lock money can buy doesn't help when the thieves tear the door off.  The key lockers have their own combination dials where users choose their own four-digit combinations and then must remember to spin the wheels after they close the door.  There is no provision for a user-provided lock; the dials are vulnerable to a stethoscope attack and there is a passkey slot that I am sure would yield to a pick gun.

And, of course, car locking systems of all kinds are secure only up to a certain point.

I use the key lockers in spite of their shortcomings since they are within view of the check-in desk, and haven't had problems with the protocol I use.  But it is a calculated risk.

[Rothman]

Invest in a better lock.

Within the downtown Y it is not really up to me.  The best lock money can buy doesn't help when the thieves tear the door off.  The key lockers have their own combination dials where users choose their own four-digit combinations and then must remember to spin the wheels after they close the door.  There is no provision for a user-provided lock; the dials are vulnerable to a stethoscope attack and there is a passkey slot that I am sure would yield to a pick gun.

And, of course, car locking systems of all kinds are secure only up to a certain point.

I use the key lockers in spite of their shortcomings since they are within view of the check-in desk, and haven't had problems with the protocol I use.  But it is a calculated risk.

I would think if thefts and damage were so prevalent that the Y would have to close down due to insurance costs going through the roof.

Our downtown Y allows for people to bring their own locks.

[kalvado]

Invest in a better lock.

Within the downtown Y it is not really up to me.  The best lock money can buy doesn't help when the thieves tear the door off.  The key lockers have their own combination dials where users choose their own four-digit combinations and then must remember to spin the wheels after they close the door.  There is no provision for a user-provided lock; the dials are vulnerable to a stethoscope attack and there is a passkey slot that I am sure would yield to a pick gun.

And, of course, car locking systems of all kinds are secure only up to a certain point.

I use the key lockers in spite of their shortcomings since they are within view of the check-in desk, and haven't had problems with the protocol I use.  But it is a calculated risk.

I would think if thefts and damage were so prevalent that the Y would have to close down due to insurance costs going through the roof.

Our downtown Y allows for people to bring their own locks.

I just happened to see a few videos about lock picking.... General purpose locks are meant only to protect against honest people, as it seems.

[J N Winkler]

I just happened to see a few videos about lock picking.... General purpose locks are meant only to protect against honest people, as it seems.

Lock picking is fun!

[1995hoo]

A novel called CyberStorm by Matthew Mather presents an interesting take on the problems that can occur when you rely too much on technology for mundane things. Somewhat interesting read, though the characters were mostly just the vehicle for the author to get his point across (similar in that respect to Shuttle Down by Lee Correy, which tells the story of what happens when Atlantis makes an emergency landing on Easter Island). If you're interested in the issue of needing a "Plan B" or similar, you might find it an interesting read.

Oh, wow, in response to this post I discovered on Wikipedia that Easter Island really was an alternate landing site for the Shuttle, and NASA paid to lengthen their runway so it would be usable with the Shuttle orbiters' dead-stick landings.  That also made the airport usable by jumbo jets, which have greatly increased the island's tourism.

I wonder what kind of trajectory would bring the shuttle to easter island.  Was that for California polar launches? Also given paranoiac rules for available runway...   Scheduling effects would be non-trivial.   

Correct. NASA and the Air Force planned to launch the shuttle (Discovery was to be the one primary dedicated to Defense Department use) from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Typical launches would have been southbound over the Pacific Ocean, which would have meant Easter Island would have been one of the only landing sites available in case of an emergency. Southbound launches from Florida were deemed unacceptable due both to the need to overfly heavily populated areas of South Florida and the political problem of the solid rocket boosters potentially coming down within Cuban territory.

No Vandenberg launches ever took place, of course. STS-62-A was planned for 1986 but was delayed and, ultimately, cancelled after the Challenger accident. It's unclear whether a Vandenberg launch would have succeeded, either. A polar-orbit launch doesn't get a gravity assist, so the shuttle's payload capacity would have been reduced. To make up for that, NASA and the Defense Department planned to use filament-wound solid rocket boosters that would have been lighter than the normal ones. There was also concern about vibrations from the surrounding mountains and increased icing due to the cold weather. One analysis estimated a 25% chance of catastrophic failure on any given West Coast shuttle launch.

The book I mentioned, Shuttle Down, was written by a NASA employee under a pen name as what Piers Anthony once called a "message novel." He was concerned that NASA wasn't taking all sorts of issues related to the potential for emergency landings seriously and he wanted to show what sort of problems they'd face if they didn't shape up.

The potential for polar-orbit launches, incidentally, was the reason for the shuttle having the winged design it used. The Air Force wanted to be able to launch a shuttle to retrieve a satellite (or steal a Soviet satellite) and then land back at its launch site within a single orbit or two. But the Earth's rotation meant the shuttle needed sufficient cross-range to do that because the landing site would have moved some distance to the east by the time the shuttle completed an orbit. Makes me wonder to what extent the Columbia accident was due, in part, to the unrealized plans for polar-orbit missions–might the wings not have been needed, or at least not in the same configuration, had polar launches not been planned?

Intercepting satellite on a single orbit flight is  a joke at best.
As for wings, runway landing requires wings no matter what. Shuttle flaring capability already was somewhere  between those of  steam iron and a brick. And turbine engines were ditched pretty early in development process.
Landing without wings... Parachutes is pretty much the only option.  And without flare aiming at a landing site is pretty difficult, if possible at all.

Where DoD actually destroyed the shuttle was in payload requirements (15 tons at 104% and 30 tons at 109% IIRC). That shaped entire program into a monstrous thing.

What I think I recall reading was that it was the particular delta-wing design they used that was necessitated by Defense Department requirements and that some other design (I do not know the details) had been proposed prior to various specification changes. It certainly seems like some form of delta wing was needed given the hypersonic velocities achieved. The Boeing 2707 studies show why a swing-wing design would have been impractical (recognizing that was to have been a passenger aircraft, of course, but the issue of the weight penalty that proved unacceptable for the 2707 would surely have been a significant issue).