sigh. So, you see, this is exactly what I am talking about.Serious hard SciFi, anything set past 2100, players probably will never be in charge of a ship... if the ship isn't an AI, it's still likely to be able to inform of the range and fuel status for overtake fast, and won't let them do suicidal courses (including no-return) so that really is pretty irrelevant, with a knowledgeable and fair GM.
Orbital mechanics are not the only example, but they are a great one, because they are a study about how our intuition fails us. Yes, of course, the players can be made aware of things that will be immediately suicidal, and choose not to do it. But, orbital mechanics are a study in very strict budgeting. People who live on the ground do not realize how much that choice will restrict future choices. And it is that restriction that can be disastrous.
Let us say the players make a maneuver now. They can still reach home, fine. But now they have used some of their reserves, so that later, when they need to make the huge course correction to avoid disaster... they no longer have the juice.
If it is actually a hard-science game, abstracting the issue to a die roll doesn't change that. It should, in fact, enforce that. And folks who do not understand the science will not really grok it, until it is too late.
And, as noted, this is only one example. The real world where we put sci-fi is an unforgiving place. More unforgiving than a grim'n'gritty, "I hate how fast healing is so I'm eliminating all healing magic and you heal one hit point a week" GM. It works in fiction because fiction is determined by an author. In real space, when things don't go according to plan, it isn't cool drama. You just die.
That's why I raised the point about "fair". The vacuum of space is not "fair". So, what constitutes "fair" GMing in this kind of environment?