Among the dedicated space ETFs in this category, NASA is the one that currently carries SpaceX exposure. UFO, the veteran of the group, launched in 2019 and uses revenue screens to aim for as pure-play an exposure to the space economy as possible, ETF Trends reported in April. That means it looks for companies that generate the majority of their revenues from space-related activities. A private company like SpaceX does not fit that mold.

UFO also recently crossed $500 million in assets, making it the market’s biggest space ETF by assets, ETF Trends reported in April. ARKX, the ARK Space Exploration & Innovation ETF managed by Cathie Wood and team, has about $260 million in assets and does not disclose SpaceX as a holding either, ETF Trends reported in April. Those two funds are bets on listed space-economy companies, not on Elon Musk’s private rocket maker.

That is the split investors need to keep in mind. SpaceX exposure and space economy exposure are not the same thing. One is a private-company bet with valuation and liquidity baggage attached. The other is a basket of public stocks that orbit the broader theme without touching the private asset itself.

The broader market backdrop helps explain why the category keeps catching a breeze. The space economy is roughly a $700 billion global market and has doubled in the last decade, ETF Trends reported in April. That does not change the mechanics of ETF selection. It just explains why so many investors are looking at them in the first place.

NASA launched on March 31, 2026, and Tema says the fund gets SpaceX exposure through a special purpose vehicle provided by Forge, a subsidiary of Charles Schwab, ETF Trends reported in April. That is not direct share ownership. The SPV holds the private shares, while the ETF holds an interest in the vehicle, giving investors economic exposure rather than stock certificates.

Tema says NASA is the first pure-play ETF focused exclusively on the modern space economy to include 10% direct exposure to SpaceX, Tema said in March. It also says the fund offers a transparent, actively managed vehicle to access SpaceX alongside the full ecosystem of companies building the space economy of the future, Tema said in March. The marketing pitch is easy enough to follow. The plumbing is where things get interesting.

At launch, SpaceX represented about 10% of the portfolio, Tema disclosed in March. The rest of the fund sits in listed names across the space economy, including AST SpaceMobile at 7.13%, Rocket Lab at 6.82%, Planet Labs at 6.16%, EchoStar at 5.06%, Filtronic at 4.71%, 5N Plus at 4.70%, OHB at 4.35%, Firefly Aerospace at 4.25%, and Intuitive Machines at 3.83%, Tema disclosed in March.

The fund charges a 0.75% gross expense ratio, Tema said in March. Tema also said all transaction costs, fees, and commissions tied to acquiring and holding SpaceX exposure are absorbed by the firm, Tema said in March. That is a neat selling point, but it does not answer the harder questions: how the SpaceX stake is valued inside the SPV, how often that valuation moves, and what happens if investors head for the door in a hurry.

NASA is brand new. It has no performance history yet, and there is little independent scrutiny of how the structure will behave once the market stops admiring the idea and starts testing it.

If NASA is the newest experiment in private SpaceX exposure, ERShares’ XOVR is the cautionary tale. The fund first added exposure to SpaceX in 2024, and the position grew fast. By early March 2026, SpaceX made up around 37% of assets and had climbed well above 40% in recent days, Bloomberg reported in March.

That concentration would be unusual in any fund. In an ETF holding an illiquid private asset, it gets awkward very quickly. XOVR then saw roughly $630 million in outflows in a single day, and because the fund met redemptions mainly by selling public stocks, the SpaceX SPV swelled to 44.5% of net assets, Morningstar reported in February. Morningstar noted that this sat far above the SEC’s 15% limit on illiquid holdings in open-end funds, Morningstar reported in February.

The mechanics are not subtle. When a daily-liquid ETF owns a hard-to-sell asset, redemptions push the liquid holdings out first. The private piece then becomes a larger share of a shrinking pool. That is how a manageable position turns into a problem.

ERShares also updated its disclosures to add language on privately offered securities, Financial Post reported in March. The fund’s operating expenses were also increased to reflect costs related to the SpaceX holding, though Shulman said those expenses apply to the last reporting period and a previous SPV structure, and “does not reflect the economics of the restructured vehicle going forward,” Financial Post reported in March. Morningstar’s Ptak also noted inconsistencies with how ERShares values its SpaceX stake, Financial Post reported in March.

The performance record did not help the case. XOVR returned 12% last year, while the Invesco QQQ Trust Series 1, which tracks the Nasdaq 100 Index, returned 21%, Financial Post reported in March. Critics pointed out that as assets poured in, the fund’s SpaceX stake became increasingly diluted, potentially limiting upside for investors who were drawn to the private-company angle in the first place, Financial Post reported in March.

None of that means NASA will repeat the same pattern. It does mean the structure is not theoretical. A SpaceX stake inside an ETF can look tidy in a press release and messy when money starts leaving.

The choice here is not between two versions of the same product. It is between two different trades.

If the goal is SpaceX itself, NASA is currently the only dedicated space ETF with that exposure, via an SPV and a private-market valuation. That is the attraction. It is also the catch. Investors get access to one of the most sought-after private companies in the market, but they also inherit valuation opacity, liquidity constraints, and the possibility that the position swells mechanically if redemptions hit the fund.

If the goal is space-sector exposure without that private-asset structure, UFO and ARKX are the cleaner tools. UFO screens for companies that earn most of their revenue from space-related activities, ETF Trends reported in April, while ARKX is an actively managed fund focused on space exploration and innovation, ETF Trends reported in April. Neither fund holds SpaceX today. Both would only add it after a public listing, according to the methodology for UFO, ETF Trends reported in April.

That uncertainty is why the distinction matters. SpaceX may be the emotional magnet, but most of the capital in space ETFs is still going into listed companies tied to launch services, satellites, communications and defense. The theme is real. It just is not the same thing as buying SpaceX.

There is one more reason the category keeps getting attention. Tema says the global space economy could nearly triple by 2035, driven by falling launch costs, the expansion of broadband satellite connectivity, growing defense applications, and the early stages of commercial space exploration, Tema said in March. Those figures help explain the demand. They do not make every ETF wrapper a good way to get there.

If the question is how to invest in SpaceX through ETFs, the answer today is simple: NASA is the only dedicated space ETF that appears to offer it. The fund says it does so through an SPV, not direct ownership, and that difference matters more than the marketing copy would suggest.

If the question is how to buy the broader space trade, UFO and ARKX are still the more straightforward options. They own public companies with space exposure, not SpaceX itself. That may sound less exciting, which is often how the safer structure gets introduced in finance.