My real life situation is from an article called “Uncontrolled European satellite falls to

Earth after 30 years in orbit” published on a website called “The Guardian” by Hannah
Devlin. The article is about the re-entering of a satellite named ERS-2 to the Earth which was
launched in 1995 by the European Space Agency. The satellite was out of use as it was
deorbited in 2011 to prevent any possible accident that can be caused by the collision of it
with another satellite. The satellite is predicted to be broken into pieces as it entered the
atmosphere and burned up. It has fallen into the ocean somewhere between Alaska and
Hawaii.

The real life situation is related to natural sciences as it explains a situation related to
science and concerns some of the five major branches of natural sciences such as astronomy
and physics. The European Space Agency (ESA) stated that “The risks associated with
satellite re-entries are very low”. However, they do not give any numerical or scientific
evidence proving that statement. Therefore, this creates a question if the ESA is telling the
truth about this issue. Are they only saying this to not cause any chaos in society or is it really
the truth? Objectivity is very important in this matter. This issue concerns human life if it
carries any risks therefore they do not have the right to hide the truth so they have to be
objective. Being objective means promising to offer information that can be backed up with
genuine proof, rather than making things seem more interesting or speculating. Being
objective requires a thorough investigation of where the satellite went, how it was switched
off, and what could happen if it returns to Earth without anybody controlling it.

Moreover, Albani stated that “...none of the elements that might re-enter the atmosphere
are radioactive or toxic.”. However, there is no certain evidence that supports this argument
as well. People are just expected to believe the verbal statements. Unfortunately, without
evidence people cannot know if they are telling the truth or not. From an objective
standpoint, people have every right to know the truth as there is a chance that their lives may
be at risk. It is not very hard to give some numerical evidence as the news contains other
evidence such as the speed and the altitude of the ERS-2.

The turn of ERS-2 back to Earth is an important issue to talk about. When discussing
ERS-2's return to Earth, it is critical to keep to the facts, use proof, and convey the truth. If
we do this, we will be able to have productive discussions, clear up any misconceptions, and
ensure that space exploration and environmental stewardship are done responsibly. I believe
that the ESA can put more attention to this topic.