On the contrary, I have been getting into modern science fiction after being raised on my dad's collection of Asimov/Clarke/Heinlein/etc. and the modern stuff is great. Check out Vernor Vinge, Greg Egan, Kim Stanley Robinson. None of that is science fantasy. If anything, I'd say that science fantasy is less popular now than it was two or three decades ago. Look at the popularity of modern TV and movies: Arrival, The Martian, Gravity, The Expanse, Interstellar. Three of those are complete hard science fiction and the others are more in the vein of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Contact than Star Wars.
Granted Vinge is some 20 odd years younger than Asimov, but I'm not sure I'd contrast either Vinge or Robinson as new or contemporary sci-fi (still great, though, no argument there).
Maybe Alastair Reynolds, Charles Stross and Ian Banks could be singled out as being "new hard sci-fi"?
More in the same age as Vinge, I'd also mention Nancy Kress.
Even William Gibson and Bruce Sterling are approaching retirement age these days...
> Arrival is arguably science fantasy since it's central conceit isn't very sciencey
Read the original short story: the actual premise is actually very science-y, and completely "true sci-fi." Don't want to spoil it here though.
> though everything _except_ that is very hard sci fi.
Yeah, personally I think sci-fi (rather than sci-fantasy) is allowed to break a single physical law and still be considered sci-fi, as long as it's done consistently and the consequences properly explored.
Personally I like James Nicoll's definition of hard science fiction: it's hard SF if the author gives enough details that the reader can be _certain_ it wouldn't work.
I unintentionally stayed up until dawn reading Seveneves (Neal Stephenson) at the weekend.
There's sufficient description of orbitals, metallurgy, robots and delta-v to make this science fiction. It's a little odd to see that together with social media, smartphones, and mentions of ESA: not much sci-fi I read is set in the present.
