I would actually be seriously concerned about this. There are a whole lot of things not being considered and I'm thinking it'll be pretty easy, because of missing data, for the software to say, "A fire here will be a cake walk to control" when in actuality, it'll be MUCH worse.
What data am I talking about? It's already been proven that the ground cover overgrowth has been a really big reason why some of the fires have been so horrible. Do you really thing that a satellite is going to be able to correctly assess that factor through the dense canopy of a long established forest? How about dryness of that overgrowth. Can you measure that through the canopy? What else are they missing.
My recommendation would be to NOT trust this until it's proven that it doesn't make mistakes, regardless of reason or use (manpower predictions or proactively checking for places that need some thinning and other care).