I'm not certain I understand the alternative implications of what you want. A socialistic entity with no corporations? A bunch of private individuals working for free? Government entities producing everything? An AI that manages every aspect of an individuals life and tells people what to do to produce goods? An artificial machine race that does everything for us? Truth be told, the last one is the most interesting, but I'm losing the track here and that comes with an entire host of new challenges. Corporations, as much as we may feel we hate them, serve a purpose. They'll produce goods or services that no one is producing, but only for a profit. SpaceX wouldn't be able to exist if what it were doing were at a net loss. NASA wouldn't launch rockets if it were too expensive. They wouldn't receive any more support for projects. You'd be paying about 10x more if it weren't for corporations for electronics, and any individal or socialistic entity wouldn't attempt to even perform into the market because of the advanced costs and lack of startup capabilities. Space exploration is going to be the same way without substantial investors or profitability. Neil Degrasse Tyson does an excellent job explaining the issues of receiving public funding for anything "space exploration" related. He goes over all the great explorations of history and how they were funded. Unless there's some sort of technological breakthrough, social-economic progress will be dominated by corporations, government, and the wealthy individuals of said corporations, and said progress will be dominated by profitable viability. This also means, probably no Planet Starbux, since most planets have a deep gravity well. They would likely have an agricultural space station for planting their coffee and making their product using an asteroid for raw materials or something similar.

The article states fusion as of the current writing. All currently proposed nuclear rocket designs are fission, a very large difference.