US and China need a space hotline for orbital emergencies, experts say
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Finding a peaceful relationship with the growing prowess of China's space program could start with a simple phone call on a new hotline.
The United States needs to act now to address threats to space assets, find new approaches to space traffic management to support the growing space economy, and incorporate commercial perspectives into civilian and national security space policy. That's the output from a task force report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, highlighted during the Space Foundation's 40th Space Symposium held April 7-10 in Colorado Springs.
The report, "Securing Space: A Plan for U.S. Action," asserts that if the United States is to adapt to today's fast-paced commercial, technological, and national security landscape in space, it needs to make space a top national priority. The report also calls for the creation of a space hotline with China, to be used to lower the risks of miscalculation or misunderstanding as the U.S. and China continue to militarize Earth's orbit.
Esther Brimmer, a senior fellow in global governance at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), said a specially-constituted task force proposed a seven-part plan, urging policymakers to reshape its approach to uphold U.S. leadership in space.
"There is no single international organization to help manage space, but we can work with the institutions we have," Brimmer said. She was the project director of the CFR space report.
CFR is an independent think tank, generating policy-relevant ideas and analysis on consequential issues that face the United States and the world.
"It's the first time the Council on Foreign Relations has addressed anything to do with space," said retired U.S. Space Force Lieutenant General Nina Armagno. She served as co-chair of the CFR report along with Jane Harman, a former U.S. Congresswoman.
"The space economy is booming," said Armagno, with escalating booster launchings around the world that lob spacecraft into Earth orbit. "But with that, comes congestion, debris, and the threats that we all know are there by Russia and China."
But with all that activity, Armagno said "there are no rules in the space domain" and "is anyone listening, I don't know."
Within the space community there is an "echo chamber," Armagno said, noting that the CFR report on space is directed at the Trump administration with the intent that they will declare space as a national priority.
If funding is applied to that aim, said Armagno, "then we know this administration is listening."
Armagno said that the CFR report acknowledges that China is essentially here to stay. "Our report points to sharpening our policy on China. Our policy can't be 'China bad.'"
However, China is preparing for conflict in space, with some reports suggesting that it is honing "dogfighting" skills, Armagno added.
"Our policy has to be what can we do in the global domain together," but with eyes wide open knowing the U.S. and China don't agree on everything and there is geopolitical tension between the two countries, she said.
Two ideas fleshed out in the CFR report underscore needed rules of the road in space, said Armagno.
"We want to reinvigorate the discussion on establishing a hotline," Armagno told the audience. "We have a hotline with Russia," she said, so it's not rocket science, and could be modeled in similar fashion.
"So in case of an emergency or a miscalculation, we can pick up the phone and get the truth," observed Armagno.
An additional idea broached in the CFR report is search and rescue, almost one of the oldest international endeavors that countries do together.
"There's already an astronaut rescue agreement, but it's only to rescue astronauts on the planet … if they end up in the ocean or on land. But there's nothing about rescuing astronauts in space," Armagno said.
This would be a table talk topic, Armagno said, to pursue with China ironing out the necessary steps of working together in an emergency situation, be it astronauts, cosmonauts, or even space tourists in trouble.
"China is there to stay in the space domain," Armagno said, "so we need to figure out some ways to work together, at the very least, in an emergency situation."
Samuel Visner of the Space Information Sharing and Analysis Center focused on the ever-growing commercial space sector. He was a member of the CFR task force.
"The private sector is absolutely key to our national security," said Visner. It is intertwined with technological and economic security, he said, and "undermine any of them and you weaken our country, you weaken our allies and partners, and you weaken our global position."
The private sector's role in securing space needs to be fully recognized, Visner emphasized, but stressed that commercial space endeavors are also "targets of our adversaries."
Visner said commercial space systems, be it for navigating trucks to precise harvesting of fields for enhancing agricultural output are now military targets.
"Our adversaries recognize that, potentially, they are vulnerable, that we depend on them, and they are preparing to exploit and attack them," said Visner.
As a case in point, Visner highlighted that the first attack by Russia in the ongoing invasion of Ukraine involved a cyber attack of a space system used by Ukraine.
"Russia has made it clear," Visner said, "that commercial space systems of their adversaries, Ukraine, potentially NATO, potentially the United States, are now legitimate military targets."
RELATED STORIES:
— Trump's 2026 budget plan would cancel NASA's Mars Sample Return mission. Experts say that's a 'major step back'
— China moving at 'breathtaking speed' in final frontier, Space Force says
— 'It's very pro-commercial space right now': An industry insider's off-Earth status report
Underscored during the symposium discussion is a warning from the CFR task force report: "Without immediate changes to how space is governed, the benefits of access to space could be lost to everyone. As the leading spacefaring country and the home base of the most innovative space companies, the United States is uniquely positioned to determine this future."
The report also notes that "unlike aviation, shipping, and telecommunications, the space economy lacks a unified, single international institution that can establish or enforce an agreed-on set of best practices."
The full report can be read on the Council of Foreign Relations' website, along with a video explaining its key findings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Satellites keep breaking up in space. Insurance won't cover them.
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Airplane passengers crossing the Indian Ocean who peered out their windows on Oct. 19, 2024, might have seen what looked like a fast-moving star suddenly flash and fade. Above their heads, a $500 million satellite was exploding. Operators confirmed the destruction of the Intelsat-33e satellite two days later. There was a bright flash as the satellite's fuel ignited, followed by the flickering of the debris cloud as it fragmented into at least 20 pieces. Those satellite parts are now zooming around Earth, along with around 14,000 tonnes of space debris. The satellite wasn't insured. As space junk increases, more operators are choosing to launch without any insurance at all. To compensate, companies are cutting back on the cost of satellites and launching more of them at faster rates, thus creating a feedback loop as the cheaper satellites break up more easily and add to the problem. "I don't think it's sustainable," said Massimiliano Vasile, an aerospace engineer and professor at the University of Strathclyde Glasgow. Behind the predicament are two vectors moving in opposite directions: The cost of launching satellites is falling, while the cost of insuring them continues to soar. Even as record-low-cost launches are improving internet coverage and cell service, they're worsening the space junk problem. Low Earth orbit, where most communications satellites are circling, is becoming increasingly crowded. Satellite insurance, meanwhile, has never been more expensive. 2023 was likely the worst ever for the market, with reports suggesting satellite insurers faced loss claims of more than $500 million. 2024 may have been even worse, according to Insurance Insider. Satellite operators are responding predictably, by foregoing coverage. There are 12,787 satellites above the Earth as of the time of publication, according to the website Orbiting Now, which tracks active satellites, but only about 300 are actually insured for in-orbit accidents, David Wade, an underwriter at Atrium Space Insurance Consortium, told Data Center Dynamics. European and UK operators are legally required to insure their satellites, which puts them at a cost disadvantage compared with India, China, Russia and the U.S. American companies such as SpaceX have also been able to reduce launch costs because of reusable rocket parts. Europe's upcoming Ariane 6 rocket program, for example, is expected to cost between $80-120 million per launch, compared with SpaceX's Starship program which is anticipated to cost between $2-10 million per launch because of its reusable rockets. In the U.S., launchers are required by law to procure liability insurance for launch, but once the satellite is in orbit, insurance is no longer needed. SpaceX, for example, is self-insured, meaning it seeks third-party insurance for almost none of its Starlink satellites. "Typically, the launch cover is literally just for that [launch] stage, and once a satellite gets into orbit, you are off risk," said Steve Evans, owner of insurance data provider Artemis (which is unaffiliated with NASA's lunar program of the same name). The satellite "either makes it, or it doesn't," he told The space insurance market began in 1965, when Lloyds Bank insured Intelsat I, which broadcast the Apollo 11 moon landing. The first known satellite failures occurred in 1984, though some later recovered, including the $87 million Intelsat 5 ($2.82 billion in today's money). The industry has generally hovered around a 5% failure rate since 2000, with Data Center Dynamics reporting that there have been only 165 claims for more than $10 million across the history of the industry. The 2019 failure of a military observation satellite for the United Arab Emirates, called the Vega rocket, led to $411 million in claims — the largest such loss in history, Reuters reported. That year, total satellite insurance losses became greater than insurance premiums for the first time, according to Bloomberg. Insurers were hoping to claw that money back in following years, but Reuters reported in 2021 that Assure Space and AmTrust Financial were both stopping insurance due to collisions. Insurers were looking for a payout in 2023, but instead, that year saw close to $1 billion in claims and some $500 million in losses. For many long-standing insurers, it was the last straw; Brit, AGCS, AIG, Swiss Re, Allianz and Aspen Re all exited the space insurance market. Canopius, a specialist space insurance provider acquired by Lloyds in 2019, told via email that it was no longer underwriting space business. Of the satellites in Earth orbit, around 42% are inactive, according to Seradata. The number of active satellites increased by 68% from 2020 to 2021 and by more than 200% from 2016 to 2021. Much of space insurance is modeled off the aviation industry, but space premiums are 10 to 20 times aviation premiums, Reuters reported in 2021. A satellite in low Earth orbit typically needs $500,000 to $1 million of coverage, whereas a satellite in geostationary orbit requires $200 million to $300 million, according to the same report. Behind the rush to exit the satellite insurance industry is a fundamental problem with satellite insurance: There's usually no way to determine who was at fault. When a house burns down or a car crashes, insurers often send investigators to verify a claim before approving a payout. But in the dark reaches of space, they can't operate that way. "In the event of a loss and a claim by the insured, it is almost impossible, if not entirely impossible, for insurers to investigate the cause of the loss, whether total or partial, and thus determine the amount to compensate the insured," José Luis Torres Chacón, a professor in the department of economic theory and history at the University of Málaga in Spain, told "I think this is where the root of the problem lies." Liability insurance is problematic for satellites, too, since it's extremely difficult to tell whether a satellite broke up because of an internal explosion or because of a collision with someone else's space junk. And if the latter, it's very hard to identify where the debris came from. "At the moment, it's not possible to say it was actually a fragment from that original explosion or collision that damaged the satellite," Vasile said. "So, in terms of insurance, it's a bit of a nightmare.' Vasile believes the market is moving toward legal liability for any operator responsible for creating space debris at all. "I think the government needs to set the rules, precisely as the government sets the rules for road traffic or shipping," he said. But a switch to stricter liability could create big problems for an increasing number of launch companies that are moving to cubesats — cheaper, short-duration satellites that are eventually abandoned by their operators as gravity slowly pulls them into Earth's atmosphere. Some climate satellites are in danger of colliding with space junk. Analysis of data from NASA's Land Data operation Products Evaluation, which tracks research satellite maneuvers, reveals at least seven occasions where NASA's Terra and Aqua climate satellites lost data while having to avoid space debris. Spacecraft in low-earth orbit are already under continuous threat. On Nov. 19, 2024, the International Space Station shifted its orbit to avoid another piece of space debris — this time, from a destroyed meteorological satellite. "Even a speck of paint is enough to destroy a satellite," Jakub Drmola, who studies the politics of satellite and missile defense systems at Masaryk University in the Czech Republic, told The worst-case scenario is Kessler syndrome, a chain reaction in which the breakup of a few satellites cascades into a wipeout of everything in orbit. Some researchers think Kessler syndrome is already happening, only very slowly, and that we've already reached the stage where the cost of cleaning up space far outstrips the benefits. "The world has now begun to depend on space in ways that we never thought were going to be possible," said Gen. C. Robert Kehler, former head of Air Force Strategic Command, speaking to reporters at the 2024 Outrider Nuclear Reporting Summit in Washington DC. He favors introducing a regulatory system similar to air traffic control. "We need rules of the road," he said. RELATED STORIES — Related: 3 big hunks of space junk crash to Earth every day — and it's only going to get worse — Space debris from a SpaceX Dragon capsule crashed in the North Carolina mountains. I had to go see it (video) —NASA satellite's 'shocking' space junk near-miss was even closer than thought The problem isn't staying above our heads. On March 8, 2024, a discarded piece of hardware from the International Space Station fell through the Florida home of Alejandro Otero, shaking the whole house. His 19-year-old son was inside. NASA had jettisoned the spare battery carrier, assuming it would either burn up or land in the Gulf of Mexico. But the agency's calculations were wrong. If the debris had landed just a few feet away, someone likely would have been seriously hurt or killed, according to Mica Nguyen Worthy, an attorney who is now litigating the first-ever case of property damage from space debris against NASA. Nguyen Worthy described space debris litigation as the 'next frontier' of outer space law. Without a clear set of rules, she said, future satellites launches and space travel itself could become impossible. 'I think it's important for the space community, and why they do take it so seriously, because they don't want there to be a situation where we have trapped ourselves on Earth, [and] we can't get out."
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
What's Holding Back Sustainable Business? The Challenges That Matter Most
The race to a sustainable future is on In the next five years, an entire generation of 2030 sustainability goals will finally come due. ESG reports and shareholder letters alike are soon going to face their biggest reckoning yet: will all the lofty promises translate into real progress? Early signs suggest the answer will be sobering. While ambition has soared, actual outcomes have continued to lag stubbornly behind. The reality is not that business leaders lack the will, rather, it's that the pathways to sustainability are far murkier, slower, and more difficult than anyone knew, or perhaps wanted to admit. For many organizations, the past few years have revealed a brutal truth: good intentions alone are not enough. Across industries, leaders are confronting the growing reality that sustainable business challenges run deeper than public promises and ESG reports might suggest. Without the right goals, infrastructure, and incentives, sustainability efforts either stall or end up serving more as marketing than meaning. The subtle forces working against sustainability are often invisible at first: misaligned incentives, fragile infrastructure, and underpriced risk. It's time we look at them more clearly if we want to build companies that can genuinely claim to have moved the world forward. The Importance of Aligning Goals With Real-World Sustainability Execution At the heart of any real change is leadership that understands both the limits of today and the possibilities of tomorrow. Kenn Ricci, founder of Flexjet, is an executive who strives to embody both while also running a business in one of the more challenging industries to be sustainable in, aviation. As he explains it, Ricci's sustainability philosophy doesn't fall into the trap of setting goals that look good but collapse under operational scrutiny. Instead, he focuses on what could become possible with enough pressure and patience, and then works to build the conditions to achieve it, whether it is to further sustainability across his fleet of jets or simply managing the day-to-day operations at the back office. 'When you lead people, you can't just say, 'This is where we're going,'' Ricci explains. 'You have to build a path under their feet, step by step, that makes it believable and doable. Otherwise, it's just a dream. Worse yet, it might be just your dream, and never become theirs.' At Flexjet, Ricci has consistently pursued operational improvements that align with larger sustainability aims, but without forcing the business to lurch into goals it cannot yet support. He argues that trust, not slogans, is what sustains long-term change. 'Sustainability isn't a checkbox even if some still treat it as such,' Ricci continues. 'It's an ongoing negotiation between ambition and reality. The leaders who win are the ones who never let go of either side.' His pragmatic optimism stands in stark contrast to much of the corporate world, where sustainability targets are often designed by communications departments rather than operational leaders. And herein lies the first reason why we haven't seen as much progress on ESG goals as we would have wanted. For far too many companies, sustainability has not been a metric that they have actively led with themselves. Ricci puts it bluntly: 'Sustainability has to be a steering wheel, not a rearview mirror. If you're just reporting it, you're already too late. And the leaders have to be the ones with both hands on it, not just the sustainability or comms team.' He's also keenly aware that true leadership requires putting real capital behind sustainable change, not just political or reputational capital, but operational resources that can withstand market cycles. 'Anyone can make promises when the sun is shining,' Ricci says. 'The question is what you stick to when the headwinds come. That's where real commitment shows.' Why Sustainability Depends on Infrastructure: Lessons From Aviation and Energy If setting the right goals is the first battle, building the right infrastructure is the war. Kennedy Ricci, CEO of 4AIR and son of Kenn Ricci, has spent his career focusing precisely on this frontier. His company offers a certification program for aviation's environmental impact, not by promising zero emissions tomorrow, but by helping aviation stakeholders take verifiable, incremental steps today. 'A lot of people get paralyzed because they think the only good goal is net-zero tomorrow,' Kennedy Ricci explains. 'But if you can measure, track, and improve a little bit every day, that's how you actually get there.' 4AIR's approach doesn't pretend aviation can become clean overnight. Instead, it recognizes that building credibility today through offset programs, sustainable aviation fuels, and transparent reporting lays the groundwork for deeper decarbonization later. The company's rise is testament to the power of pragmatic ambition anchored by real-world execution. Kenn Ricci reflects on his son's growing success: 'Building an empire is one thing. Building a legacy that adapts to the future is something else entirely. I'm proud that Kennedy's taking on the harder challenge.' He continues, "We've always believed that real leadership isn't about announcing goals, it's about laying bricks, patiently, and getting others to walk the road with you. 4AIR is doing just that." Meanwhile, infrastructure challenges aren't limited to aviation. The broader energy ecosystem faces its own existential bottlenecks that a handful of companies are doing their best to break open for the rest of us. Deóis Ua Cearnaigh, CTO at Aeon Blue, a company specializing in energy transition technologies and sustainable fuel, emphasizes that sustainability isn't about simply adding more renewables into the grid. It's about fundamentally rethinking how the grid operates. 'It's wonderful that we have more wind and solar now,' says Cearnaigh. 'But you still need a spinning reserve for when the wind dies and the sun sets. If that reserve is fossil-powered, your emissions story isn't as clean as it looks.' Their bigger point is this: you can't just add renewables on top of a fragile or misaligned system and expect magic. Without reengineering grid storage, reserve capacity, and distribution models, the true sustainability gains remain elusive. Cearnaigh believes that while renewables will dominate the next twenty years, nuclear energy will inevitably rise as the long-term backbone for sustainable baseload power. 'The zeitgeist today is wind, solar, and geothermal,' he reflects. 'But it does also seem that nuclear is one inevitable destination as well.' Without grappling with these infrastructural realities, sustainability risks becoming a story we tell ourselves, not a future we actually live. This mindset mirrors the thinking of Brett Bouchy, CEO of Freedom Forever, a company deadset on revolutionizing residential solar. 'The solar revolution doesn't happen because people feel good about the environment,' Bouchy points out. 'It happens when saving money on your electricity bill is cheaper and easier than sticking to the grid.' Bouchy's laser focus on efficiency is another reminder that for sustainability to scale, it must compete not just morally, but economically. As Bouchy frames it, "We don't succeed by selling dreams. We succeed by selling better economics. And better economics drive real environmental change." He's blunt about the reality check the green economy still needs: "Nobody switches to solar because you guilt them into it. They switch because it's cheaper, easier, and works better. That's how you win hearts, wallets, and the future. And for that, you need the infrastructure to be in place, management to know what goals to drive towards, and an audience that is ready to trust what you are selling." Bouchy also sees a deeper, long-term opportunity that transcends energy bills: "Every home we upgrade is a client win, sure. But it's another node in a smarter, decentralized energy system. Sustainability isn't a utopian idea. It's the byproduct of millions of small, self-interested decisions that add up to a revolution." If only revolutions were easy, which is exactly why stories like the above are worthy of retelling. Companies that rise up to the challenge of sustainability cannot be taken for granted, simply because of how rare they still remain. That is particularly true for investments, which is the third missing pillar that is making 2030 feel further away than it should. Why Long-Term Investment Is the Missing Piece in Sustainability Strategy If setting the right goals is the first battle, and building the right infrastructure is the war, then making the right investments is the long campaign, often fought without fanfare, headlines, or even immediate returns. And it's here where sustainable business faces one of its most persistent barriers: the cruel mismatch between moral urgency and financial immediacy. Capital, by its nature, seeks returns. It rewards speed, liquidity, and demonstrable gains. But sustainability often demands patience, long arcs of investment, and a willingness to fund seeds that may only bear fruit decades from now. It asks us to invest in forests we may never personally walk through. Doing good, it turns out, is relatively easy. But doing good money, investments that compete at par with traditional, short-horizon opportunities, remains the real Everest to climb. This doesn't mean that the private sector is full of villains twirling their overgrown mustaches. It's simply important to recognize the system we've built and how it operates. Until the returns of sustainability become structurally competitive, whether through market shifts, regulatory frameworks, or pure innovation, capital will continue to flow where it always has: toward the short, the sure, the profitable and the now. The uncomfortable truth is that economics, not ethics, will be the final arbiter of the transition's speed, even if ethics gets to set the goal. And yet, there are signs of things shifting. Signs that smart leaders know: a world where customers demand sustainable products is fast approaching. A world where supply chains simply cannot function without green tech is not far behind. Companies who wait until the economics are easy will find that the customers, the talent, and the licenses to operate have already gone elsewhere. Which brings us to the handful of players quietly laying the groundwork. ENEOS, Japan's largest energy group, offers one instructive case. They are investing heavily in hydrogen transportation, synthetic fuels, battery recycling, and carbon capture, not because it makes perfect financial sense today, but because they know what survival will require tomorrow. 'There's no question the world needs cleaner energy,' an ENEOS representative explained in an interview. 'But if you exit fossil fuels too quickly, you leave markets in chaos, and ironically, you can make the transition slower, not faster.' The trick, as they frame it, is not to burn the bridges while crossing the river. Real transition demands continuity, not collapse. "You can't dismantle today's infrastructure before tomorrow's infrastructure is ready," added another ENEOS representative noted. 'The world is too interconnected for idealism alone. You need to build pathways people can actually walk.' This recognition, that reality, not rhetoric, is the substrate upon which change must be built, permeates the thinking of those who are keen to see sustainability truly take root today. Brett Bouchy, CEO of Freedom Forever, who is busy scaling residential solar across America, frames it in plain terms: 'You don't win by selling dreams. You win by selling better economics. If going solar isn't easier and cheaper than sticking with the grid, the revolution doesn't happen. Period.' It's a bracing, necessary reminder that narratives alone don't move markets. Incentives do. And this brings us full circle to the real challenge ahead: building an economy where sustainability isn't a premium add-on for the wealthy or the virtuous, it's the baseline expectation for everyone. In that future, "green" won't be a differentiator. Instead, it will simply be the cost of doing business. Those who invest today with that reality in mind, patient, practical, sometimes lonely, will be the ones best positioned when the forest finally blooms. And those who don't may find themselves, too late, standing outside the gates of a new economy that has no room left for yesterday's math.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
I Heard Jurassic World Dominion Was Bad, But I Would Watch It Over Any Other Jurassic Sequel
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. SPOILER WARNING: The following article gives away, just about, the entire plot of Jurassic World Dominion. If you have not yet seen the 2022 Jurassic Park movie, act like Owen Grady holding up his hand to magically neutralize a dinosaur, and proceed with caution as you read on. With Jurassic World Rebirth hitting theaters soon, I figured it was about time that I do something I had been reluctant to do: catch up with the full franchise and watch Jurassic World Dominion. Considering the beastly reviews from critics and audiences, I was braving the worst, but, to my surprise, I thought it was far from it. To be clear, I would not call Colin Trevorrow's sequel a good movie. I think it suffers from a pitifully lazy script, sleepy acting, and throwing out the previous film's setup for a dinosaur-ridden dystopia in favor of, echoing Eric Eisenberg's Jurassic World Dominion review, two bland, disparate plotlines that have little to do with, ya know, dinosaurs. However, I do not at all regret watching it and would choose to watch it again over most sequels to Steven Spielberg's 1993 classic, which I realize may come as a shock to many Jurassic fans. Well, allow me to explain… In previous articles of mine, such as my reaction to the recent sci-fi thriller Companion, I have made it clear that I am a staunch technophobe who fears how dangerously technology's advancement could, or already has, affected our society. However, there is one fear of mine that I have been a bit less vocal about in my writing until now: bugs, especially ones of unusual size. So, you might be able to imagine how I felt when the genetically engineered locusts appeared on the screen. Now, I will agree with the widely shared opinion that a Jurassic Park movie focusing its plot on a non-reptilian prehistoric creature is a mistake, but said creatures did manage to get my adrenaline going faster than any of the dinosaurs that appear in Jurassic World Dominion. That being said… Whenever a dinosaur would appear on screen in Dominion, I found it nothing short of impressive. The special effects, boasting the classic blend of practical animatronics with some of the best CGI Hollywood has to offer, were so convincing, I am surprised there was not more praise about that aspect, at least. Aside from their visual effects, I felt that the action sequences involving dinosaurs are genuinely some of the best that the franchise has ever seen. I recall, in particular, being thoroughly riveted by a scene taking place in Malta, when Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) is chased on a motorcycle through the city by Atrociraptors. I had to stop and think to myself, Wow, I am actually having fun with this movie, and it did not stop there. Some have said the extended edition of Jurassic World Dominion is better than the theatrical version, but you can get both on a Blu-ray and 4K UHD set from Amazon for nearly half off the regular price!View Deal The one reason I had to be somewhat optimistic about finally watching Dominion was the one aspect that I had heard positive rumblings about: DeWanda Wise as Kayla Watts. I could not agree more with my colleague Sarah El-Mahmoud that the daredevil pilot is the best character from the Jurassic World trilogy for her bravery and quick wit, and for just being a badass. If there are any downsides to Kayla, I would say that she makes most of the other newer characters (including Mamoudou Athie's Ramsay Cole and even Pratt's Grady) look weaker than I already believed they were, and that she should have been introduced to the franchise earlier. With all due respect to Scarlett Johansson and Mahershala Ali, a part of me wishes that she were the focus of the upcoming 2025 movie, Jurassic World Rebirth, instead. Despite my harsh words about the newer Jurassic characters, I have to admit that I really enjoyed seeing them finally interact with Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), and Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum). In fact, I don't think I was ever amused by the OG heroes' return until that moment, as the parameters of their reunion and the moments the trio shared never felt particularly natural. And don't get me started about the random callbacks to the first film, like Lewis Dodgson (Campbell Scott) somehow possessing the fake Barbasol canister and displaying it in his office. What?! Anyway, I can't say that 'natural' is a word I would use to describe Grant, Sattler, and Malcolm's meeting with Grady, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), and others in the final act either. The events that lead them to each other are far too convenient (like many other aspects of the plot), and much of their dialogue feels egregiously forced. Yet, there was something about seeing them all gathered together and relying on one another to survive against the prehistoric wildlife that left me wishing the movie had dedicated more time to bringing them together. Of course, any Jurassic Park fan knows that the real draw of this franchise is not the meat, but the meat-eaters, and the one who rules them all is the Tyrannosaurus Rex. Any return by that big behemoth in these movies, no matter how convoluted the reasoning may be, is warmly welcomed by me, and its appearance in Dominion was no exception, especially since it was not alone. I actually really dug how the T-Rex was treated as a hero, Godzilla style, in the film's final act, when it teams up with a Therizinosaurus to bring down the Giganotosaurus. Watching the T-Rex throw the Giganotosaurus onto the Therizinosaurus' claws, fatally impaling it, made for a more satisfying final battle than the Indominus Rex showdown in 2015's Jurassic World, if you ask me. I don't see a future in which I ever boot up my Peacock subscription to watch Jurassic World Dominion again, unless I get curious and decide to check out the extended edition, which I hear is an improvement. Yet, I can't say I feel that I wasted my morning watching it the other day, which is something I can't say about most of the follow-ups to the original '90s movie classic, and that calls for a modest roar of applause in my book.
