About Space Tech Daily
We started (ST Daily) Space Tech Daily because we were tired of science news that missed the point.
Too many websites take a research paper, strip out everything interesting, and hand you a headline. You walk away knowing a discovery happened but having no idea what it actually means. That frustrated us for years. So we stopped waiting for someone else to fix it and built something different ourselves.
We write about the subjects we genuinely understand — the ones we studied formally, followed closely for years, and still find ourselves reading about at midnight for no reason other than curiosity. That kind of relationship with a subject is hard to fake, and it shows up in the writing.
Where This Started
Science was never just a school subject for us. It was the thing we read about on weekends, argued about with friends, and followed closely even when nobody asked us to. Space missions, biology breakthroughs, physics discoveries, climate research — we tracked all of it because it genuinely interested us.
That kind of long-term, self-directed interest builds something that formal education alone cannot always give you. It builds the ability to tell a real discovery from an overstated one. To read a study and understand what the data actually shows, not just what the headline claims. To know when a finding matters and when it is being exaggerated for clicks.
We built Space Tech Daily on that foundation. Every writer here brought years of personal study and genuine curiosity to this project before a single article was published.
How We Work
Every article on this site starts with the actual source — the study, the mission report, the research paper, the data. We do not rewrite other websites. We do not summarize press releases and call it journalism. We go to the original material, understand it properly, and then write about it in a way that makes sense to a real reader.
We do not rush. A topic that takes three days to understand properly will get three days. A claim that cannot be verified will not make it into print. If we are not sure about something, we say so clearly rather than writing around it. If new evidence changes what we wrote earlier, we go back and update the article.
Getting it right matters more to us than publishing fast. That is a choice we make deliberately, every time.
Why It Matters
Most people do not have time to read scientific journals. They rely on science websites to tell them what is happening and what it means. That is a real responsibility — and most websites treat it like a content quota.
We think about that responsibility seriously. When someone reads an article here about a new health study or a space mission, they should come away with an accurate picture of what actually happened. Not a simplified version. Not an exaggerated one. The real thing, explained clearly.
Who Writes Here
We are three writers. All of us studied science at university level. All of us have spent years following scientific research independently. None of us treat this as a side project — this is the work we take seriously.
Adrian Cole covers Space, Physics, and Science. He has been reading astrophysics research for over a decade and brings real subject depth to every piece he writes. More about Adrian Cole.
James Mercer covers Technology and Biology. He studied biotechnology, spent time in a research environment, and now writes about life sciences and emerging technology with the kind of accuracy that only comes from actually understanding the field. More about James Mercer.
Sophia Reeves covers Chemistry, Earth Science, Environmental Sciences, and Health. Her background is in environmental science, and she follows health and climate research with a careful, evidence-first approach that shows in everything she publishes. More about Sophia Reeves.
Our Standard
Most science on the internet gets reported twice — once by the researchers who did the work, and once by writers who read a press release about it. That gap is where accuracy goes to die.
We go back to the original source every time. The actual study, the real data, the full context. Not because it is easier — it is not — but because that is the only way to write about science without misleading people.
We also know our limits. If a topic falls outside what we understand well, we say so rather than guessing our way through it. Honest gaps are more useful to a reader than confident misinformation.
That is the standard we hold ourselves to. Not because it looks good written on an About page, but because it is the only version of this work worth doing.