No, they demonstrated the capability of developing one at some point in the future. The test article isn't even capable of reaching orbit, or returning from orb

No, they demonstrated the capability of developing one at some point in the future. The test article isn't even capable of reaching orbit, or returning from orbit, or landing yet. This is the easy step – comparable to the American X-15, X-23, ASSET, and SpaceShipOne projects, the Russian BOR-1 to -6 or ESA's IXV demonstrator –, turning this into a Space Shuttle / Buran / X-37b style actual space plane will be a long, expensive undertaking. And, as the Space Shuttle demonstrated, "recoverable" and "reusable" are two different beasts: The Shuttle's engines returned to Earth, but were so burned out from each launch that they required a refurbishment 80% as expensive as a whole new engine, and only managed an average of 5 launches even with that – planned were 55 flights without major refurbishments. It's also different from reusable boosters as developed by SpaceX, in case anyone is wondering: This is the upper stage portion that goes into orbit, and needs a booster to get into (or close to) orbit first. Those can be more expensive than the actual plane, depending on the design: • The X-37b launches atop an Atlas rocket, and its expensive stages are completely lost. • ESA's Hermes was supposed to launch on the similarly fully expendable Ariane 5. For regular satellite launches, you don't save much money with these designs – since you don't need to return the orbital part anyway, you can just launch the Atlas/Ariane without the expensive plane on top and still come out cheaper. It's mainly relevant for manned programmes, which is why the Hermes was cancelled (since ESA's manned programme never got the necessary funding) and Ariane 5 just launched without, and why the X-37b is restricted to classified launches that probably involve returning things back to Earth (which is where space planes really shine!). And even for manned programs, space planes don't necessarily lead to cost savings: • The Space Shuttle put all expensive parts – engines, avionics, and so on – into the orbiter, and only the big external tank burned up. The solid boosters were also recovered, but since they were just steel tubes, they didn't require much refurbishment (unlike the main engines). If the engines and heat shield hadn't been such massive failures, it might have worked out to be reasonably cheap in the long run. Alas. The way it turned out, it was a ridiculous money sink. • The Russians, as always, decided to out-crazy everyone and put engines on the Buran orbiter, even more and even bigger engines on the external tank, oh and let's use four boosters instead of two. And make those liquid-fueled, so that each side booster is as complex as a smaller rocket on its own (and can be used as such). To everyone's surprise, this bankrupted the Buran program. There were plans to put foldable wings on the side boosters and orbiter-style delta wings and heat shields on the external tanks and turn everything into UAVs that automatically land on runways after detaching, but the Soviet Union preferred dissolution over funding any of that.