The SST was abandoned because it was a loser, and we had all the proof we needed from the failure of the UK/French version. It lost money because there was no need for it, no market, they kept it flying for prestige reasons, and as soon as they had an excuse to do so, they cancelled it. It served no useful purpose. Not enough passengers are going to pay twice as much just so they can get there in half the time, especially if they have to travel in cramped conditions that can't come close to matching the comfort of a first class ticket in a conventional jet. Besides, even back then, most of the hassle and delay of air travel was endured at the airport, or getting there and back, not in the air. Even if air travel was completely instantaneous, it would still take all day and still be a pain in the ass.

No, the SST was the typical engineer's wet dream, just because we can build something doesn't mean we should--unless you can get someone else to pay the bills. The same goes for the proposed new hypersonic transports, sub-orbital rocket planes, or other adolescent fantasies currently on the drawing boards. No one NEEDS to get to Tokyo in two hours, especially if the express flight only takes off every other day. Think about it.

I suspect your friend's face-saving story was just that. It kind of reminds me of when cruise missiles first became available, there was a big push to build a new fleet of bombers to carry them, replacing our aging B-52s. It occurred to me, why an expensive new delivery system? Why not just strap them onto Piper Cubs? The whole point of having cruise missiles is that they don't require an expensive new delivery system.

Concepts like this are job programs for engineers. The next thing they'll try and sell us is that there is a future for free enterprise in space travel. 8)