Fair points, but I think the important takeaway is that $100mm per fire in <savings> is incredibly flawed. The flipside is if you save $1-2mm/per fire, you'd almost be encouraging fires (100-200?) in order to see a positive ROI. As a practical matter, many of these fires cannot be put out once started, they can only be contained. (You don't just drive in a truck and shoot water out of a hose). The methods of containment are not fast, and they don't work all that well in areas like the Yosemite backcountry. There are other political issues involved. For example, the inability to use machinery in a Wilderness Area. Without taking a position on the logic of that restriction, consider the practical effects. Removal of fuel, lack of fire roads, walk-in only access, etc.

Empirically, its common for fires that start in very populated areas to still be incredibly damaging. Early warning in these areas does not seem it will materially alter the situation on the ground. Take for example the Powerhouse fire earlier this year in LA. [1] That was visible to the naked eye almost immediately. But the are is a dry, high-desert tinderbox. Ground zero was immediately next to the local San Francisquito <fire station>, yer it took 11 days to contain, and burned 30,000 acres despite its immediate alarm and proximity to roads and fire-fighting gear.

The Yosemite back-country is far more inaccessible and has far more fuel below tree level that the area around the powerhouse fire. I think the notion that once started it could have been contained in under 24 hours to be almost implausible. And once it reached 40 acres, we saw what happened next. Just as a sanity check, Assuming it was 20 miles in to start, it would take 2 days to walk to the area from the nearest road. You will not be dropping in smoke-jumpers like navy seals into this terrain in the middle of the night. Its steep, rugged, and when its not is densley forested. The nearest meadow may be in the next canyon.

In any event, it would be interesting to thing about what we would do with such a system if it were in place. Let's say that we got if for FREE. Then think about the next 200 million of infrastructre that would be required to actually put out the fires more quickly. My guess is that doing this logistical exercise would be more the bottleneck than the actual alert time. The prevelance of cell phones, sat-phones, epirb beacons, and Spot devices greatly increases the ability to comuunicate <SOS>. They do not make it very quick to get help, however. The benhcmark is 24-48 hours at a minimum if you are in a remote area, even with a Helo in many cases.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/06/the-terrible-beau...

[2] The fire station is on the road in the middle of this image of the fire:

https://d2aoguav525b8o.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/re...