NASA testing is usually performed on articles that are covered by some kind of documented design and assembly control process. Products with certifications for example. What we are provided for propulsion have no such certifications and produced at the lowest possible cost by the lowest priced manufacturer. As such we have zero suitability or life cycle assurances. Same applies to our GPS, and compass units, ESC's and flight controllers. There are no certification standards in place that covers them in any way. This is something that should be of concern to all that fly multirotors. Selling product is more important than flight safety or product guarantee. Note that multirotor manufacturers do not publish and provide aircraft or component maintenance cycle documentation. They may not have a clue how long their stuff should last.
As the article references a study performed that documents motor failures that study is likely available to those that know who and how to ask for it. 30 hours may not be out of line when a flight lasts somewhere between 8 and 20 minutes. The article provides a lot of support for using aircraft that possess motor redundancy.
BTW, reality for battery life time and charge cycles, when they are always correctly used and handled, is 200-400 cycles or about 2 years, whichever comes first. There will be some exceptions but that is a fair average for well maintained lipo batteries. Phone and laptops use the 1000 cycle claim but both have battery maintenance software installed that we don't have and neither apply the current demands on a battery we do.
