Bobbie, I read CJ and Kdot first before I understood what you were asking. Some terms are staples in science ficition, originating either in the Golden Age of Science Fiction (1900 to 1950) or in the 1950s. They are common usage, are expected, and as Gacela said of werewolves and vampires, easily assimilated by the reader. In fact, it would be jarring not to use them. Tractor beams are among them (originating, as I said above in the idea there could be an electro-gravitic or magneto-gravitic spectrum.) Hyperdrive is another one. Warp drive originated in the '50s, and as we have achieved it at the subatomic level, a "realistic" projection into the future. (You would need something to amplify the energy output, as to achieve the Starship Enterprise, you'd need, even with antimatter, a mass the size of a tenth of the sun. Why Alcubieere gave up and why they use "dilithium crystal," to amplify the energy. Like lithium crystal as used for lasers. That leads to another SF staple, but 'di,' or 'tri' in front of something--'tritanium' is another example.) Inertialess drive is a less popular term from the 50s. I think I only read it in Poul Anderson but it would still be recognizable and disconcerting to call it anything else. (The exception would be if you named it, although avoid Cochran or other names like it for obvious reasons.) As to pulling you into Star Wars, it depends on the term. 'Lightsaber' is definitely Star Wars. You might want to distance the Flow from the Force for similar reasons. But 'subspace,' (popularized as an alternative to hyper-space (the 4th dimension that you travel in with hyperdrive), 'positronic brain,' not so much. Both the Jump into hyperspace and positronic brain originated with Asimov and are part of the SF world now (Han Solo actually, in the first Star Wars, steals a passage from Asimov's robot novels almost word for word in explaining navigation with hyperdrive.). As to 'computer,' keep computer. I use 21st-century terms for some of my concepts. 3-D printers, for example. Even if they end up like food synthesizers (Star Trek), we'd probably still call them 3-D printers, just like we call cars, cars, even though they are not horse-driven. 'Automobile' does not fall trippingly off the tongue.
Thanks for the aside to me, Kdot. I think you are right. I haven't used a tractor-beam yet, but I do use 'blaster,' and 'subspace,' both of which are time-honored and the former has a definite meaning (A controlled beam of atomic energy capable of disintegrating anything in its path). I also use the Asimovian term, 'subetheric,' which seems especially appropo as 'ether' was popularized by Madame Blavatsky. 'pulse rifle' is a term of my own, but it's easily identifiable as a ray gun (or phaser, or disrupter, or...) Ray guns, originating with the scientific fad of radionics is a staple. They first appear as the Martian heat rays in War of the Worlds and reached their peak in the 60s with super-heroes using all sorts of rays. (Space Ranger even reversed the process of fire destroying evidence with a special restorative ray.)
The thing is, you need landmarks for the reader. "Conventionalization," to use Spock's term for what the Organians did for the Federation and Klingons. If you feel uncomfortable using common terms, I suggest simply giving their originators (Wells, Smith, Asimov, Schmitz) credit. Or do what Lucas did, assume that anyone who likes your stuff will have heard these terms before.
Hope this helps.