Completely unrelated, I was thinking about how nerds seem to have a really hard time explaining things without talking down to the people they're explaining it to. On the one hand, I definitely understand that a lot of the physics she was explaining is extremely complicated, and the General Audience may not have a background in physics (I don't), but she spent huge portions of the book explaining in minute detail about what a solar system is, including pointing out that Star Wars fans get it wrong, like it's the fault of Star Wars (which...I resent. Galaxy Far Far Away couldn't make it any clearer that it doesn't take place in our galaxy, and Star Wars talks about systems of planets incessantly. Maybe they do do it wrong and that's why I don't understand Mandalore.) I know what a solar system is, and if I had to guess, so does almost everyone who was interested in a great course that seemed, on the surface, to explain how the science in science fiction worked. Another assumption I would have made is - they've all seen the episode of Doctor Who where he puts a ball in a sheet to explain gravity or the universe, or if not Doctor Who, at least understand science fiction well enough to have come across another very specific example. Another extremely nitpicky point is she said: little known fact about Dana Scully - she supports TIME travel. Ma'am, no offense, that's in the pilot. Little known fact? Mulder makes a point of talking about throughout the first season of the X-Files.
In general, there was a lot more very basic background information (solar system, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, what lightspeed is) that a person who is interested in science fiction probably already comes to the table with. Explaining what Schrodinger's Cat is? Let me do it in detail! Explaining why I needed to tell you what Schrodinger's Cat was...well, let's move on.
On the one hand I get it - almost all of the science fiction is fiction, and it can't be explained. Did she explain what hyperspace travel was in Star Wars. Yes, for two seconds, because it literally doesn't make any sense. (Also, it might have been wrong? Do I understand how hyperspace works? No. But I don't think what she explained was correct.) Did she spend a lot of time explaining the real-life space travel difficulties? So much time.
This is probably less of : the science of sci-fi, and more of: science AND sci-fi. Here is all the science (boring. also, terrifying. is the center of the earth going to cool and then all of our water is going to evaporate and then we'll die. i think we're worried about the wrong temperature, that is TERRIFYING), and here is how science fiction uses that science, and here is how science is moving towards science fiction.
The last lecture is pretty cool, because it's about the advancements of science that "look like science fiction", and how the ingenuity of fiction creators who are not hampered by the "laws of physics" and "reality" can push scientists' imaginations to create technology that functions just like they saw on tv when they were kids. I think that is very cool.

Also, one final point, that's not really about this course, but Star Wars. Is Not. Science. Fiction. and when you start trying to treat star wars like science fiction you break it. Please stop. Trying. To Make. The Science. Of Star Wars. Make Sense! That's really more of a note to myself than anything though.