BUSINESS

Warren Buffett stepped down as chairman of the board of directors of Berkshire Hathaway in September 2026, completing a process in which he relinquished lead responsibilities over the company he presided over for more than half a century.

In January 2026, Greg Abel took over as CEO, giving up day-to-day management duties in a role he assumed in 1965.

Still, Buffett will continue in an honorary advisory role as chairman emeritus. The role of chairman — which he first held in 1970 — was taken up by his son, Howard Buffett.

Here’s a look at Howard Buffett’s net worth and how many shares he owns in Berkshire.

What is Howard Buffett’s net worth in 2026?

Buffett has a net worth of at least around $9 million based solely on the value of Berkshire shares he held as of 2026. GuruFocus estimates that Howard Buffett also owns around $3 million worth of Lindsay Corp shares, which would bring his minimum wealth to at least around $12 million.

According to Celebrity Net Worth, a popular online source for celebrity wealth (which does not disclose its sources or methodology), his total net worth is much higher, at around $400 million.

How many Berkshire Hathaway shares does Howard Buffett own?

Buffett owned 10 Class A shares valued at around $7.5 million and 2,450 Class B shares valued at $1.2 million, based on the closing stock prices of September 28, 2026. Both classes of shares were listed as of March 4, 2026, according to Berkshire’s 2026 proxy statement.

Related: Greg Abel’s net worth: Buffett’s successor’s wealth as Berkshire’s CEO

How does Howard Buffett’s wealth and Berkshire stake compare to other family members? 

Howard Buffett held the fewest number of shares among family members who served as the company’s executive officers and directors. 

Howard’s sister, Susan, who also serves as a director, held 80 Class A shares and 3.19 million Class B shares, with a combined value of $1.67 billion. Most of those shares, though, are held by two private foundations for which Susan Buffett, according to Berkshire, “possesses voting power but with respect to which she disclaims any beneficial interest.”

Warren Buffett’s holdings in both classes of shares were valued at around $148 billion. Forbes ranked him the 10th richest person in the world with a net worth $143.7 billion, as of September 27, 2026. His holdings totaling 196,317 Class A shares accounted for 38.4% of the outstanding Class A stock.

How much does Howard Buffett earn as a director of Berkshire Hathaway?

Buffett earned $3,000 as a director of Berkshire Hathaway in 2025, according to the company’s 2026 proxy statement.

More on Warren Buffett:

Warren Buffett’s most insightful investing quotes as he celebrates retirement

Warren Buffett’s best investments: 5 companies that rewarded him enormously

The 3 biggest mistakes Warren Buffett made as Berkshire CEO

Will Howard Buffett inherit his father’s Berkshire shares?

Warren Buffett is part of the Giving Pledge, a philanthropic effort among billionaires to disburse their wealth. Buffett, 96, pledged more than 99% of his wealth to be distributed through philanthropic organizations during his lifetime or at his death.

It appears that less than 1% of Warren Buffett’s wealth will go to his heirs, including Howard, who is 71.

Who is Howard Buffett?

Howard G. Buffett is the second of three children of Warren Buffett and his first wife, Susan Thompason, and he was born on December 16, 1954, in Omaha, Nebraska.

He is chairman and CEO of his eponymous charity, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, which, according to its website, is focused on “investing in global food security, conflict mitigation, and efforts to counter human trafficking. Outside of the foundation, Buffett is a farmer, photographer, conservationist, businessman, former elected official, and former sheriff of Macon County, Illinois.

Related: How much Oracle stock is Larry Ellison using as loan collateral?

The brokerage is expanding its trading hours and adding leveraged crypto products and automated trading tools to attract more active investors.

Long before Jeff Bezos became the second-richest man on the planet, light years before he served looks as an unlikely style icon, and decades before he hosted a foam party on his $500 million superyacht, Koru, Bezos was just a regular guy with a dream, starting a small business out of a Bellevue, Washington garage.

Within a month of launching his online bookstore, however, Amazon (AMZN), then known as Cadabra, had shipped books to all 50 states and 45 countries. Amazon was growing—fast. Bezos would eventually describe its growth model as a “flywheel,” where lower prices generated more customers, increased traffic attracted more sellers, and greater scale allowed Amazon to reduce prices even further. Just four years after Bezos launched Amazon, his company had grown into the world’s largest online retailer.

But while Bezos controlled 100% ownership of Amazon when he founded it in 1994, he diluted his ownership in order to raise the capital it needed to fuel even greater growth. In 1995, Bezos raised $1 million in seed capital by selling 20% in the company to a cohort of angel investors that included his parents, his brother, and his sister. By the time Amazon made its IPO on May 15, 1997, Bezos owned roughly 43% of the company. After his 2019 divorce from MacKenzie Scott, Bezos’ stake fell to roughly 12% (Scott received about 4% of Amazon’s outstanding shares in the divorce settlement). By the end of 2021, after Bezos had stepped down from the role of Amazon CEO, his stake was 12.7%.

Today, Amazon’s CEO is Andrew Jassy, Bezos’ top adviser and former head of Amazon Web Services. But while Bezos is no longer responsible for the company’s day-to-day operations, he continues to be Amazon’s largest shareholder.

@kingspathlegacy Jeff Bezos Outfit 💼🔥 We analyzed the style of Jeff Bezos. Known for his elegant and confident appearance, Bezos often wears tailored suits, luxury polos, designer sunglasses, and premium accessories. Over the years, his style has evolved into a more modern and polished look, reflecting the confidence and success that made him one of the world’s most recognizable entrepreneurs. Whether at business events or casual outings, he prefers clean, sophisticated, and high-quality pieces. Some models are hard to identify exactly, so a few prices are estimated based on similar pieces — don’t mind if something isn’t 100% accurate. #jeffbezos #bezos #sigma #outfit #fashion ♬ original sound – Ralph

How much of AMZN does Jeff Bezos own? 

As of Amazon’s May 2026 proxy statement, Jeff Bezos owned 950 million shares, equating to about 8.8% of the company.

However, he has since sold and donated millions of shares. According to Bezos’ latest SEC filing, he owned approximately 879.3 million Amazon shares as of Aug. 26, 2026. Those shares were worth $219.2 billion as of Amazon’s September 2026 share price of $249.27.

Amazon is not Bezos’ only major asset. He also owns The Washington Post, aerospace company Blue Origin, and his private investment firm, Bezos Expeditions. He and his second wife, Lauren Sánchez Bezos, also hold a multimillion-dollar real estate portfolio that includes properties in Miami, Beverly Hills, New York, Washington, DC, and Maui.

Is Jeff Bezos the largest individual shareholder of Amazon?

Yes, Bezos remains Amazon’s largest individual shareholder. Current CEO Andrew Jassy holds roughly 2.25 million shares, or a 0.02% stake in the business, worth approximately $562.3 million.

More on founder’s wealth:

Steve Jobs’ net worth: How rich Apple’s founder could have been

Warren Buffett’s net worth: A look at his fortune in retirement

Mark Zuckerberg’s net worth: How the Facebook founder hit $200 billion

Douglas Herrington, Amazon’s CEO of Worldwide Stores and Shelley Reynolds, Amazon’s VP and Principal Accounting Officer, both own less than a 0.01% stake of shares outstanding. Herrington holds 474,638 shares roughly valued at $118.3 million, while Reynolds holds 119,780 shares valued at $29.9 million.

Amazon’s largest institutional shareholders

Institutional investors also hold significant stakes in Amazon. According to 13F filings for the quarter ending June 30, 2026, BlackRock held approximately 748.4 million Amazon shares, while Vanguard Capital Management and State Street held approximately 635.7 million shares and 397.2 million shares, respectively.

FundSharesValueTotal valueBlackRock Inc.748,403,539$178.4 billion13.2%Vanguard Capital Management, LLC635,764,130$151.5 billion11.2%State Street Corp. 397,186,958$94.7 billion7.0%FMR LLC365,660,364$87.2 billion6.4%Geode Capital Management, LLC233,211,684 $55.4 billion4.1%Morgan Stanley179,376,541$42.8 billion3.2%JPMorganChase & Co.167,979,147$40.3 billion3.0%Invesco Ltd.143,818,328$34,3 billion2.5%Norges Bank140,565,601$33.5 billion2.5%Vanguard Portfolio Management LLC121,626,899$29.0 billion2.1%Source: Oxfordledge

Given AMZN’s September 2026 share price of $249.27, that means that not even the company’s three largest institutional shareholders have as big a stake in the company as Bezos himself.

The global theme and amusement park industry is projected to grow from approximately $71.5 billion USD in 2026 to $110.6 billion USD by 2033.

Still, individual parks can face pressures ranging from rising operating costs to heavy regional competition and snowballing corporate debt from repairs and renovations that keep rides appealing to visitors.

Theme park giant Six Flags closed six “underperforming” locations in its amusement and water park portfolio in 2026. Wild Waves Theme and Water Park in Washington State, Adventure Landing in North Carolina, and Fun Spot America in the Atlanta suburbs are also among the smaller parks that have shut down since the start of the year.

The latest name to join that list is Ryze Adventure Park in Missouri.

Standing out from more traditional amusement parks as an “aerial adventure park” with ziplines and elevated bike and ropes courses, the park was opened by locals Greg Hoffman and Tony Holt in 2021 after years of development based on a concept more popular in several European countries.

Ryze Adventure Park shuts down 4 years after opening

As first reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Ryze Adventure Park is now set to close after just four years in operation, as operating costs rose faster than the owners could build out a visitor base and reach profitability.

Built across four stories on a lot next to a former church, the adventure park was designed to offer more than 100 aerial challenges, such as an observation deck, swaying bridges, a zipline jungle gym, and a 50-foot free-fall tower.

Tickets started at $39 for adults, and the staff was made up primarily of several dozen seasonal workers during the summer months.

Related: Disney World to make long-awaited ride repair after 18 years

Ryze’s owners promoted it as having “something for everyone” — both thrill seekers and those who would come to the park with kids and spend their time walking around and seeing the views from the different observation decks.

Amid falling revenue, Hoffman and Holt had tried to seek external management help from Applied Adventure Consulting Co., a Colorado-based management firm behind other similar adventure parks.

But ultimately the business model set out at the time of Ryze’s launch anticipated it growing its revenue by 20% within five years. According to the owners, the adventure park saw its profits drop by more than 40%.

Ryze Adventure Park was opened in 2021 by Greg Hoffman and Tony Holt.Ryze Adventure Park

“A whole year of expenses without revenue”: Ryze Adventure Park owners on closure

“It kind of softly closed,” Hoffman described to a local outlet. “We had a whole year of expenses without revenue.”

The owners are still looking for a last-minute partner to step in and see potential in an adventure park in the St. Louis suburb. Despite the falling profits, the park quickly found a strong community of regional fans that would return summer after summer over the last five years.

More Travel News:

Airline to launch unusual new flight to Cayman Islands from the U.S.

There is a very cool Irish version of swimming pigs in The Bahamas

Unexpected country is most luxurious travel destination for 2026

Low-cost airline launches easier way to get to Sri Lanka

It was also a popular booking for local corporate retreats and school field trips.

“Ryze is a confidence builder and a collaborative activity,” Hoffmann said to The Dispatch. “Otherwise, it will have to be taken down.”

Related: Company behind holiday parks insolvent, to be dissolved

Slow Horses returns with another thrilling episode of espionage and flatulence as our band of MI5 rejects faces off against a new threat in Season 6, Episode 3.

The tax is facing a new legal challenge from billionaire Steve Wynn and former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

An S&P 500 fund can feel like a broadly diversified way to own U.S. stocks. Kenny Polcari, senior market strategist at SlateStone Wealth, says that assumption warrants a closer look, given that large technology companies are driving a disproportionate share of the index.

He estimates that technology accounts for close to 40% of the market-weighted S&P 500, meaning an investor who adds a technology-sector ETF on top of an index fund may be taking far more technology risk than intended. His response is to understand the holdings, consider an equal-weighted alternative for part of the broad-market allocation, and avoid putting every dollar to work at once when market conditions are unsettled.

Polcari’s point is not that investors should abandon the S&P 500 or technology stocks. He counts names like Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Meta Platforms, Micron Technology, IBM, Fortinet, and CrowdStrike among the companies he follows or owns. His argument is narrower: A portfolio’s label can hide its actual exposures, and that matters more when investors are worried that rising Treasury yields could pressure expensive, fast-growing stocks.

Here is how Polcari thinks through that risk, and where his approach may fit for investors with different time horizons.

Why a market-weighted S&P 500 fund can concentrate technology risk

The S&P 500 is a market capitalization-weighted index, which means its largest companies receive the largest positions. When a small group of very large technology companies rises faster than the rest of the market, those companies come to account for a larger share of the index. A fund designed to track the market-weighted S&P 500 follows that same structure.

That construction differs from an equal-weighted index, which gives each constituent the same starting weight and periodically rebalances back toward that allocation. An equal-weighted S&P 500 fund still owns the companies in the index, but it does not give the largest companies the same influence over returns. Polcari sees that distinction as especially relevant for investors who believe they own a neutral broad-market fund but also hold dedicated technology funds.

You’re sitting in an S&P 500 fund. Do you realize how much of that is exposed to tech? It’s close to almost 40%, right? The tech weighting in the S&P is, I think, close to 40%. So all these people that say, ‘Oh, look, I’m in an S&P fund. I’m OK.’ Be careful, because you’ve got a lot. You’re overweighted in technology.
Kenny Polcari, when asked how retail investors in S&P 500 funds should prepare for a possible pullback

Polcari’s estimate is his assessment, not a figure from an index provider, but the portfolio logic does not depend on a precise percentage. An investor who owns a market-weighted S&P 500 fund and then buys the Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund or the iShares U.S. Technology ETF adds another layer of exposure to many of the same large technology companies. The overlap can be easy to miss because each fund has a different name and a different stated purpose.

The practical question is not whether technology is a good long-term investment. It is whether the investor has deliberately chosen the size of that technology position. A portfolio can be diversified across hundreds of stocks and still be heavily influenced by a single sector if that sector accounts for the largest holdings.

Related: Kevin Mahn: Market timing will cost you big

Why Polcari considers equal weight for broad-market exposure

Polcari’s proposed adjustment is to allocate more to a broad-market index fund, such as an S&P 500 Equal Weight Index fund, rather than relying entirely on a market-weighted S&P 500 fund. He said the equal-weighted S&P 500 was up almost 10.5% for the year at the time of the discussion, compared with 12% for the market-weighted S&P 500. Those returns describe the period discussed in the segment, not a forecast of future performance.

The gap illustrates the trade-off. A market-weighted fund can benefit more when the largest technology companies lead the market. An equal-weighted fund may lag in that environment because it gives less influence to those winners. Polcari believes the reverse could happen if technology shares fall sharply: The market-weighted index could be hit harder because its largest positions carry more weight.

If tech gets whacked, then the S&P, the market-weighted S&P, is going to get whacked. But the S&P equal weight won’t react as much. So if you want the exposure, because you want broad-market exposure, then put more money into the equal-weight S&P versus the regular-weight S&P.
Kenny Polcari, when asked what S&P 500 fund investors could do about technology concentration

Polcari’s wording is important. He says equal weight may react less, not that it will protect an investor from a broad decline. Equal-weighted funds still own stocks, including technology stocks, and can fall when the overall market falls.

They also require periodic rebalancing, which means the strategy regularly trims companies whose weights have grown and adds to companies whose weights have shrunk. That can help reduce concentration, but it can also leave the fund behind during a prolonged rally led by a small number of mega-cap companies.

Related: The hidden opportunity beyond the S&P 500’s mega-caps

How Treasury yields shape Polcari’s caution on technology stocks

Polcari’s concern about concentration is tied to his broader market view. During the segment, he said the 10-year U.S. Treasury note yield had reached roughly 5.21% to 5.22%. Higher Treasury yields can affect stock valuations because investors can earn more on government securities, which are generally viewed as having less credit risk than stocks. Higher yields can also make investors less willing to pay high prices for companies whose expected earnings are further out.

He said technology and high-growth stocks could be among the first areas pressured if yields continue rising. That is why he described himself as owning technology without chasing it at current levels. In his view, a company can remain attractive while its stock is too expensive to add to aggressively on a particular day.

Polcari said he had reassessed the yield level he considers concerning after the market held up around 5.2%. He described a range roughly between 5.3% and 5.5% on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note as a potential danger zone. If yields reached that range, he said he would become more cautious about putting new cash into stocks, though he would not automatically sell high-quality companies whose investment case remained intact.

That is a conditional view, not a prediction that yields will reach those levels or that stocks will decline by a specified amount. Polcari said a further rise in yields could lead to more volatility and could make a pullback larger than the 8% to 10% decline he had expected earlier in the discussion. Investors should treat that as his market judgment, not as a timing signal with a guaranteed outcome.

Who may prefer Treasury income to more equity risk

For investors near or in retirement, Polcari argues that higher Treasury yields directly affect the decision. He said someone in their 60s or 70s may reasonably want to reduce some market risk when Treasury income is available above 5%, particularly if that investor needs portfolio withdrawals soon. He offered an example of setting aside several years of living expenses in Treasuries, leaving the remaining assets with more time to recover from market volatility.

A Treasury allocation has its own trade-offs. It can provide known interest payments if held to maturity, but it may not keep up with inflation over a long period, and investors who sell before maturity can still face price changes. A money market fund also differs from an individual Treasury because its yield can change as short-term rates change. The appropriate allocation depends on cash-flow needs, tax circumstances, investment horizon, and tolerance for losses.

For younger investors with decades before retirement, Polcari takes a different view. He said investors in their 40s or 50s with 25 or 30 years remaining may be able to keep at least market-level equity risk if that fits their circumstances. The key distinction is time horizon. A temporary stock decline can be harder to absorb when withdrawals are imminent than when an investor is still accumulating savings.

How Polcari approaches a stock purchase during a pullback

Polcari does not frame caution as a reason to avoid every purchase. He looks for companies he already likes when their shares are weak and says he prefers adding gradually rather than buying a full position at once. A pullback is simply a decline from a prior price level; it does not prove that a stock has become cheap or that its decline has ended.

GE Vernova was his example in industrials. He said the stock had fallen more than 22% before beginning to find a base, a period in which a stock’s price stops falling persistently and starts trading more steadily. He also cited ASML, saying SlateStone Wealth owned the company and had added to an existing position during weakness rather than chasing it after a positive day.

His test is whether the original reason for owning a company has changed. That requires more work than observing a lower share price. Investors considering a purchase after a decline may want to review the company’s earnings outlook, debt, competitive position, and the specific news that caused the sell-off. A lower price can create an opportunity, but it can also reflect a changed business outlook.

You buy it on weakness because the thesis you own it hasn’t changed. The stock is just going through part of the cycle.
Kenny Polcari, when asked why he was adding to ASML rather than chasing a rally

Polcari applies the same staged-purchase idea to Micron Technology. He said Micron was down 13% from its highs at the time and could be a candidate for an initial purchase, while cautioning that a broader market pullback could push it lower again. His suggested use of dry powder means retaining some uninvested cash for later purchases. It reduces the risk of committing all available capital immediately, but it also creates the possibility that cash will sit on the sidelines while a stock rises.

The approach is better suited to investors who have already decided that they can own the company and can tolerate additional volatility. It is not a substitute for deciding how much of a portfolio should be in any one company. A position bought in stages can still become too large if the investor keeps adding without a portfolio-level limit.

Related: Ross Gerber’s defensive plan for inflationary markets

Where Polcari sees opportunities outside technology

While he described technology as somewhat stretched, Polcari said he was looking at basic materials, health care, financials, and parts of the industrial sector. His premise is that high-quality companies in those areas can come under pressure as part of a market cycle even when the underlying reason to own them remains intact.

He named JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America as financial stocks he would buy, and he named Merck & Co. and Eli Lilly and Company in health care. He also cited the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF as a way to gain emerging-markets exposure after a pullback. Polcari said emerging markets were up 23% for the year at the time of the segment, a figure he presented as a current observation rather than a reason to expect comparable future returns.

His preferences should be read as examples of his own positioning and research priorities. He also said he would avoid consumer discretionary stocks in Q4, while distinguishing that sector from consumer staples. Sector views can change quickly with economic data, interest rates, corporate earnings, and consumer spending, so a single strategist’s shopping list is not a complete portfolio plan.

The takeaway for S&P 500 investors concerned about a pullback

Polcari’s decision procedure starts with a portfolio inventory. Identify every fund and stock you own, look through each fund to its major holdings and sector weights, and add up the technology exposure across the whole account. An investor who is comfortable with that concentration may keep it. An investor who discovers more exposure than intended can consider reducing dedicated technology purchases, shifting part of a broad-market allocation toward equal weight, or adding assets from other sectors.

The next decision is about time horizon. Long-term, buy-and-hold investors who do not need the money soon may be able to tolerate more equity volatility than investors funding near-term retirement spending. Investors who need near-term cash flow may place more value on the income and relative stability of Treasuries or money market funds, while recognizing that the income rate can change and that inflation remains a risk.

Finally, investors considering a pullback purchase can decide in advance how much they are willing to invest initially and how much cash they want to reserve for later. That process will not remove market risk. It can, however, make a portfolio’s technology exposure, cash needs, and reasons for owning each investment easier to understand before volatility forces a decision.

Polcari expects market volatility and sees Treasury yields as a major variable, but his central advice is more durable than a one-month market call: Know what your funds actually own, match risk to the time when you need the money, and avoid confusing a familiar index label with a fully diversified portfolio.

Amid a “flight to quality,” Microsoft’s stock has stood out as an AI winner, according to one analyst

At the start of 2026, a new policy put in place by the Trump administration started requiring non-U.S. residents to pay a $100 entrance fee for 11 national parks such as Everglades, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Grand Teton.

This came alongside raising the price of the America the Beautiful annual pass for multiple national parks to $250 for visitors from outside the U.S., up from the $80 it now costs for only U.S. residents.

Put in place by the Making America Beautiful Again by Improving Our National Parks executive order that President Donald Trump signed in July 2025, the policy was controversial from the beginning, due to what many see as unfair targeting of those who come to spend money in the U.S. as tourists.

Across Arizona Tours sues over international visitor fees for national parks

On Sept. 29, Across Arizona Tours, a tour group selling organized van trips to Grand Canyon National Park, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Arizona. It claimed that between 80 and 90 of its potential clients in recent months ultimately “decided not to reserve a tour with the company, most of whom indicated that their decision was related to the increased fees.”

The Across Arizona Tours complaint against the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the National Park Service further claims that the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, signed into law in 2004 under the Bush administration, allows government agencies to implement new fees, but not through a tiered structure that discriminates against some visitors based on where they come from.

Related: 105-year-old historic hotel by national park files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The lawsuit claims that the Department of Interior and Secretary Doug Burgum overstepped their authority and is asking the Arizona district court to block the fees from being charged at Grand Canyon.

Across Arizona Tours is suing over the $250 fee the Trump administration began charging international visitors to the Grand Canyon.Image source: Shutterstock

“Federal agencies cannot make up fees as they please”: lawsuit

“Federal agencies cannot make up fees as they please,” Jacob Haas, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation libertarian public interest nonprofit representing Across Arizona Tours in the lawsuit, said in a written statement, according to The Hill.

“Only Congress can authorize federal fees. And Congress has never authorized higher fees for nonresidents — not least because such a policy would discourage international tourism and hurt companies like Across Arizona Tours.”

More Travel News:

Airline to launch unusual new flight to Cayman Islands from the U.S.

There is a very cool Irish version of swimming pigs in The Bahamas

Unexpected country is most luxurious travel destination for 2026

Low-cost airline launches easier way to get to Sri Lanka

Over the last year, tourism-industry representatives and organizations, including the National Parks Conservation Association, have criticized the nonresident fee. They see it as poorly envisioned and hastily implemented, giving the impression that the Trump administration is “putting Americans first” while causing millions in lost international tourist dollars among local businesses.

The $22.5 million that Burgum said was generated from the fees in the first six months of 2026 also ended up being approximately 50% less than the “more than $90 million” that the Trump administration diverted away from national parks to various beautification projects around Washington, D.C., according to SFGate. This is despite the administration saying the fees would make up for the diverted funds.

A spokesperson for the Department of the Interior told The Hill that American visitors are already subsidizing national parks through their taxes, “while foreign tourists are paying higher entrance fees to help maintain our parks and improve visitor experiences.”

Related: Another national park closes hotels, campgrounds, overnight parking

Rocket Lab’s out-of-the-blue protest against NASA’s commissioning Blue Origin to develop the Mars Telecommunications Network could torpedo the 2028 launch of the orbiter.