Better Aerospace ETF: Tema's NASA (Which Includes SpaceX) vs. U.S. Global's JETS

The key second-order read is that this is less a pure “space vs airlines” comparison and more a comparison of two very different factor expressions: a capital-intensive, cyclical cash-yield basket versus a long-duration venture-like optionality basket. That matters because the space fund’s inclusion of pre-IPO exposure creates a hidden liquidity mismatch: headline AUM may look robust, but the economic exposure can be much less fungible in a stress event, making discounts/premium swings and NAV realization risk more important than in a plain-vanilla ETF.

For the airline complex, the main beneficiary is not just the carriers themselves but the broader travel ecosystem that sits behind them: MRO, airport services, and aircraft leasing can often capture the recovery with less earnings volatility than the airlines. If fuel costs stay contained and load factors hold, the market can keep rewarding airline equity beta for a few quarters; however, the trade is fragile because airlines historically give back gains quickly when yields compress or macro data softens. That makes the current setup more suitable for tactical trading than strategic accumulation.

The contrarian point is that the market may be overpaying for narrative scarcity in the space basket while underestimating how much execution risk remains between thematic promise and monetizable revenue. A space ETF can outperform in a momentum regime, but the terminal value of many holdings is still dependent on a small number of contract wins, launch cadence, and capital raises over the next 12-24 months. In contrast, airlines have a much clearer path to cash generation and buybacks, so the relative valuation spread between the two themes may be more important than the label on the fund.