Tema Space Innovators ETF (NASA)

The only listed ETF that holds SpaceX directly. Newer entrant ($333M AUM), narrower portfolio (~20-40 names), structurally higher NAV opacity but unique private-mark optionality.

Investment Research · Photoncap-style deep dive · Bucket E v1 · 2026-05-22

What this ETF tracks

NASA is an actively managed ETF run by Tema ETFs (a UK-founded thematic specialist that launched on NYSE Arca in 2024). The mandate is "actively managed exposure to the emerging space economy through a portfolio of both publicly listed companies and a limited selection of high-conviction, pre-IPO companies, including space exploration, rockets and propulsion systems, and satellite technology." That parenthetical is the entire reason this ETF exists: NASA holds private SpaceX shares directly inside a '40 Act mutual-fund-style wrapper.

As of May 20, 2026, NASA holds 89,771.84 common-share-equivalents of SpaceX, marked at a total value of $58,912,771 — which implies a SpaceX market-cap mark of approximately $1.56 trillion. The SpaceX position is roughly 17-18% of fund NAV. No other listed ETF gives you that exposure. ARKX did briefly hold SpaceX through the ARKVX private fund, but ARKX itself (the public ETF) does not. So NASA is the only liquid way to get SpaceX inside an ETF.

The remaining 80-83% of the fund is invested across roughly 20-40 publicly listed space economy names — overlap with UFO and ARKX in the obvious places (RKLB, PL, ASTS, IRDM, RDW, LUNR, FLY) and some idiosyncratic names that Tema's PMs add (Reaction Engines, Sidus Space, BlackSky).

The ticker "NASA" is licensed marketing — there is no relationship with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Index methodology / rebalance

No index. Active management with discretionary rebalance — Tema does not publish a fixed rebalance schedule. SpaceX share count was unchanged from Q1 2026 to Q2 2026; the mark moves with the latest tender-offer-implied valuation. Tema discloses holdings monthly (not daily like Ark), which means there is a meaningful information lag.

Methodology around the SpaceX mark: Tema marks private positions using a combination of (a) most recent primary or tender round, (b) third-party valuation report, and (c) independent fair-value committee. This is standard '40 Act practice but the inputs are inherently judgmental. SpaceX's most recent reported tender was at approximately $1.4 trillion (Dec 2025); NASA's current $1.56T mark embeds a ~12% premium to that, presumably based on later secondary trades.

The 20-40 name public sleeve is concentrated by design — Tema is explicit about wanting only "high-conviction" names. Turnover is moderate, ~25-35% annually.

AUM, expense ratio, daily volume

AUM is approximately $333M as of May 12, 2026 — meaningfully smaller than UFO ($889M) or ARKX ($930M). The fund crossed $1B briefly in late 2025 then saw outflows during the early-2026 chop; current AUM has recovered as the SpaceX mark moved higher. Expense ratio 0.75%, same as UFO and ARKX — but note Tema also charges underlying administrative fees on the private SpaceX position (~10-15 bps additional), which doesn't appear in the headline number.

Daily volume is 80K-200K shares — by far the lowest of the four ETFs in this section. Bid-ask spreads 10-15 bps, can widen to 25-40 bps in fast tape. Use limit orders aggressively.

Premium/discount to NAV is the structurally tricky part: because the SpaceX mark only updates monthly (and roughly), NASA can trade meaningful premium to stale NAV when SpaceX news hits. The Dec 2025 tender at $1.4T drove a 4-day NASA premium of +180 bps before NAV adjusted. Expect similar dislocations around any SpaceX news.

Top 10 holdings + concentration

SpaceX 17-18% (largest), then a tail of public space names. Public-side top holdings overlap heavily with UFO: RKLB, PL, IRDM, ASTS, LUNR, FLY, RDW, BKSY are all in the top 15. Top 10 estimated at 58-62% concentration (Tema does not publish exact weights for top 10 monthly).

The composition tells you the structural bet: 17-18% in SpaceX private, ~40% in the new-space pure-plays (RKLB et al), ~20% in satcom (IRDM, GSAT, MDA, SATS), and ~22% in cash/adjacent names. So NASA is structurally a "SpaceX + new-space concentrated" play with less legacy-satcom drag than UFO and less defense-tech drift than ARKX.

What's happening at largest holding (SpaceX private)

SpaceX is in the middle of a critical 18-month window: Starlink IPO is rumored for Q3-Q4 2026, Starship orbital reuse cadence is ramping (last reported launch cadence of 1 every 14 days, target every 7), and the Department of Defense Golden Dome contract awards are flowing — SpaceX was named the prime integrator in March 2026 with an estimated $2.5B initial obligation. All of this flows into NASA's NAV mark whenever Tema updates it.

The next likely mark-up trigger is a Starlink S-1 filing (if it happens in summer 2026). At that point the publicly disclosed Starlink financials would force a transparent mark, and SpaceX-parent could re-rate up or down depending on what the standalone Starlink numbers show. NASA is the cleanest ETF expression of that binary.

The downside is the inverse: if Starship slips again or the Golden Dome integration shows execution friction, the SpaceX mark would face downward pressure at the next valuation committee — and that hit lands on NASA before any other holder can react.

Alternative ETFs: UFO vs ARKX vs NASA vs ITA — when to use which

NASA's lane is unique: "I want SpaceX exposure inside an ETF wrapper, and I am willing to accept private-mark NAV opacity to get it." There is no substitute among the four. Destiny Tech100 (DXYZ) is the only other listed vehicle with material SpaceX exposure, and it trades as a closed-end fund with persistent premiums (currently +60-100% premium to NAV).

Versus UFO: NASA is more concentrated, narrower (20-40 vs 54 names), and adds SpaceX. Less liquidity, higher prem/disc risk. Same fee.

Versus ARKX: NASA has less defense crossover (no LHX/KTOS overweight) and more pure-play space concentration. Both active, same fee, NASA has SpaceX while ARKX does not.

Versus ITA: completely different exposure. ITA is defense primes; NASA is new-space + SpaceX.

The right use case for NASA is as a 1-2% sleeve specifically targeting SpaceX optionality — paired with a larger UFO position for the broader theme.

Structural risk: index methodology, liquidity, tracking error

Private-mark NAV risk is the dominant structural risk. The SpaceX position is marked subjectively. If the fair-value committee writes down SpaceX by 20% in any single update (which has happened in past private holdings during downturns), NASA NAV drops ~3-4% in a single day with no warning and no public catalyst.

Liquidity risk: $333M AUM with 80-200K daily shares is the lowest in the group. In a fast drawdown NASA could see widening prem/disc spreads of 100-150 bps before APs can rebalance.

Tema operational risk: smaller fund sponsor than ProcureAM (which runs UFO) or Ark (which runs ARKX) or iShares (which runs ITA). Operational and counterparty risk is materially higher. Tema has done well in its short history but the firm is roughly 4 years old.

Marketing/ticker risk: the "NASA" ticker is provocative. The actual NASA (the agency) has not challenged it but reserves the right. Probability of forced rename low but non-zero.

Bull / Gap / Optionality

Bull

1. SpaceX is the single biggest binary in the theme. Starlink IPO + Starship cadence + Golden Dome integration combine into the highest-impact catalyst cluster in the space sector — and NASA is the only ETF expressing it directly. If SpaceX prints a $2T mark on a Starlink S-1, NASA NAV moves 4-5% mechanically.

2. Smaller AUM = nimbler portfolio. $333M is small enough that Tema can rotate without market impact, exit losers cleanly, and concentrate on conviction. UFO and ARKX cannot move at this size.

3. Less satcom drag than UFO. ~20% legacy satcom vs. UFO's ~20% but Tema actively underweights the slowest names (no SIRI, light VSAT). This makes NASA structurally better correlated to the pure-play rally.

4. Underowned by institutions. At $333M AUM most institutional allocators haven't sized in yet — NASA is below the threshold for pension and large endowment use. As that threshold ($500M-$1B) is crossed, structural flow tailwind.

Gap

1. SpaceX mark could re-rate down. Private valuations are sticky on the way up and sticky on the way down — but if Starlink S-1 reveals weaker Starlink unit economics than market embeds, the SpaceX-parent mark catches a downward revision. NASA NAV directly exposed.

2. Liquidity is structurally thin. 80-200K daily volume vs UFO's 400K+ means in a sharp drawdown spreads widen sooner. For position sizes above $5M this matters.

3. NAV is opaque. Public sleeve marks daily; private SpaceX marks monthly with judgment. That means NASA price action between updates is partly speculation about what the next mark will be. Not a clean signal.

4. Tema concentration risk. With only 20-40 names, NASA has top-10 concentration likely 60%+. Single-name blow-up in RKLB, ASTS, or PL drags more than in UFO.

Optionality

The trade

NASA is the right vehicle if you want SpaceX exposure inside an ETF wrapper — and only if that's specifically what you want. Otherwise UFO is broader and more liquid for the same fee. Entry zone: $34.69-$38.35 (current ±5%). Sizing: 1.5% of risk capital as a satellite to a larger UFO position, NOT as a primary hedge. Stop: $32.00 (~12% below current, wider stop because thin liquidity creates noise). Catalyst: Starlink S-1 filing window (Q3-Q4 2026). Pivot: if you want SpaceX exposure with higher conviction but accept closed-end-fund premium volatility, DXYZ (Destiny Tech100) gives you concentrated SpaceX-plus-private-AI exposure but trades at structurally large premium to NAV.

Conviction: 5 / 10. Unique exposure, real liquidity tax, structurally interesting only as a 1-2% sleeve.

ticker: ITA name: iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF theme: Space & Aerospace bucket: E conviction: 4 entryzonelo: 213.70 entryzonehi: 236.20 currentprice: 224.95 pricedate: 2026-05-22 positionsizepct: 2.0 stoploss: 210.00 thesisoneline: Cap-weighted defense-prime ETF dominated by GE/RTX/BA — NOT a space ETF; the ~5% RKLB inclusion is the only space exposure and it is overwhelmed by the prime weight. catalystnext: FY27 defense budget mark-up + GE Aerospace earnings catalystdate: 2026-07-22 rsi: 53.4 vs50ma: 0.8 forwardpe: 0 themecycleposition: mid customermixsummary: Top 4 GE 19%, RTX 14.7%, BA 10%, Howmet 5.2% — 48 holdings, top 10 = 74.58%. terminalriskoneline: Prime concentration means ITA is structurally a bet on legacy defense; space-theme exposure is symbolic at best and dragged by the cap-weight of underperforming primes. bulldriverscount: 4 gapriskscount: 4 optionalitycount: 4 lastearningsdate: nextearnings_date: