Many readers eschew technical details. I have already been accused of being too technical. In other words, the computational aspects of my story require a certain hardness, so I do write HARD SF, and for consistency I need to maintain this level if possible as these hard readers are the readers who will stick with me.
I need to be true to my vision.
Eric Wicklund recently pointed out to me that there are varying degrees of Hard Science Fiction. Let’s say you decide to include an assumption of Artificial Gravity in a story without explanation, but in other areas, carefully obey known physical laws. “Hard scifi isn’t a toggle switch,” he says, “it’s a potentiometer, with gradients of ‘hardness’. My advice would be if you include <artificial gravity>, don’t make it too easy. Make the technology filled with caveats and pitfalls. When tech doesn’t come too easy, it just ‘feels’ more real to me.”
Some folks seem to equate Hard SF with Explaining Everything. This is NOT a great definition. Assuming ships have A.G. does not imply loss of “Hard” credibility. Eric Michael Craig (whose Shan Takhu Legacy books do not use AG) advises “There is a propensity to think we understand how the universe works. That our understanding of physics is complete and all encompassing and that if we don’t know how something works NOW, it cannot be made to work in the future. To assume that because we do not currently know enough of how gravity works, to create an artificial version of it, means it cannot be done EVER, is a supreme act of scientific hubris.”