• I ranked double cheeseburgers from 12 different fast-food chains.
• White Castle surprised me with its small, cheap, and super-flavorful sliders.
• I thought In-N-Out's famous Double-Double was great value and undeniably delicious.

A classic double cheeseburger is a fast-food staple, but which chain has the best one?

May 28 marks National Burger Day, but burgers remain one of the most popular foods in the US throughout the rest of the year. A 2023 report by Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation found that 79% of Americans order burgers at restaurants at least once a month, while Forbes reported McDonald's is one of the most valuable brands in the world.

Over the years, I've tried practically every fast-food double cheeseburger on the market. For a definitive ranking, I tried double cheeseburgers from McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Shake Shack, White Castle, Whataburger, P. Terry's, Five Guys, Cook Out, Checkers, Sonic, and In-N-Out.

Here's every fast-food double cheeseburger ranked from worst to best.

My least favorite double cheeseburger was from Burger King. It cost me $3.89.

The burger was under $5, but I'm not sure it was worth the price.

It comes with two of the chain's beef patties, American cheese, pickles, mustard, and ketchup on a sesame-seed bun.

It comes with one slice of cheese.

This burger was super filling, but I liked the other burgers I tried more.

Right away, I tasted the thick beef patties. The burger had traveled a little more than 15 minutes from my local Burger King to my apartment, but the meat was still juicy and the cheese nicely melted.

The pickle slices were thick and crunchy, and I enjoyed the sesame-seed bun, which added a nice textural element. But I thought there was just a little too much ketchup, which will likely vary depending on who's making your burger that day.

It was also a little heavy for my liking. It filled me up a little more than I had anticipated before jumping into the rest of the burger comparison. Still, for a burger that costs just under $4, that might be more of an asset than a hindrance if you want a filling, inexpensive lunch.

Next was Wendy's double cheeseburger, which the chain calls a Double Stack. I ordered it for $4.49.

It was about the same price as the burgers from McDonald's and Burger King, though it landed squarely in the middle in terms of value.

A Wendy's double cheeseburger comes with two junior-size hamburger patties, American cheese, ketchup, mustard, pickles, and sweet onion.

The toppings looked a little stingy, and they were clustered in the middle of the sandwich. I would have liked to see them more spread out.

The burger bun was fluffy and light, and the toppings had a ton of flavor.

But I had to get a few bites in to reach the toppings in the center.

The toppings themselves were amazing. I thought the pickles were the most flavorful out of the burgers I tried, and I liked the use of an onion ring rather than diced onion, although I would've liked more.

The McDonald's double cheeseburger cost me $5.79.

It was slightly more expensive than Wendy's version but had more toppings. It came with an extra slice of American cheese plus chopped onions, and I thought it was still relatively affordable.

The double cheeseburger from McDonald's comes with two beef patties, pickles, chopped onions, ketchup, mustard, and two slices of American cheese.

I was interested to see if the added toppings would amp up the flavor.

I thought the ingredients came together well in this burger, but the bun was a little lackluster.

The bun held everything together and was a good size, but it was a little too soft and didn't have a lot of flavor on its own. But I enjoyed the amount of condiments and didn't find them overpowering.

The chopped onions added a lot of flavor, and the burger patties were juicy despite being thinner than the Burger King ones. I liked the added cheese but didn't think it was necessary.

In ninth place was the double-meat Whataburger with cheese.

It costs $9 at a Whataburger in Austin, excluding tax and fees.

I ordered it with a large bun, American cheese, grilled peppers and onions, pickles, and ketchup.

The burger was a decent size and I could see the gooey cheese peeking out from underneath the soft potato bun. 

Unlike the other double cheeseburgers, this burger had sliced jalapeño peppers that I imagined would add quite the kick.

The ingredients definitely set this burger apart from the others.

I thought the burgers had a delightfully crispy texture to them, and the toppings added a ton of flavor.

The bun was light and fluffy, but I did think the burger patties could have been a little thicker and juicier.

Coming in eighth was the double cheeseburger from P. Terry's Burger Stand, a regional chain I visited in Austin, Texas.

The burger cost only $5, making it one of the cheaper burgers I tried.

Despite being less expensive than the Whataburger double cheeseburger, the P. Terry's burger was larger.

I ordered it with pickles, onions, ketchup, mustard, and American cheese.

I again thought the cheese could have been more melted, but the size definitely made up for that small detail.

One of the benefits of ordering from P. Terry's is that you can easily customize your burger and add a number of toppings including grilled onions, the chain's special sauce, tomato, lettuce, and more.

I thought the burgers were juicy and the pickles had a tart crunch to them.

The bun was slightly underwhelming, but I thought it was an excellent, large burger with tons of flavor, especially for the low price. I also thought the mustard really came through and added a lot to the burger.

The double cheeseburger from Shake Shack was the second most expensive burger I tried.

I paid $12.49 for a double cheeseburger. I could customize my toppings, but I went with pickles, onions, and Shack sauce.

Right away, I thought the burger was massive.

The burger patties were perfectly crispy on the outside and covered in gooey melted cheese. The pickles also looked large and homemade. It was even heavy to pick up.

The toppings were generous and the chain's signature Shack sauce, which is a mayo-based sauce with a slight mustard flavor, made it really tasty.

The cheese was thick and perfectly melted.

However, biting into the Shake Shack burger was a little overwhelming, in my opinion.

The burger was huge, which was both an asset and a hindrance. I struggled to get through more than a few bites.

However, despite being the second most expensive burger, I thought it was worth the price. The burger patties were much thicker than the other burgers I tried, and the toppings took it over the edge in terms of flavor.

Overall, I was impressed … but stuffed.

In sixth place was the double-decker burger with cheese from Checkers.

The burger has since been replaced with the Big Buford, which has all the same ingredients but a bakery-style bun instead of a sesame-seed bun. The burger costs $7.69 at my local Checkers in Brooklyn.

I thought this burger was a little pricey for the size.

It was smaller than my hand, though it did include a variety of toppings like tomato, lettuce, and red onion. The burger also comes with American cheese, dill pickles, ketchup, mustard, and mayonnaise on a toasted bun.

The burger patties were very juicy and the toppings tasted fresh.

I also thought the American cheese was very tangy and flavorful. Overall, I enjoyed the combination of flavors. However, the price prevented this burger from ranking higher. 

I also tried the double cheese slider from White Castle.

White Castle sliders tend to be eaten in pairs, so I ordered two. Each burger cost me $3.55, so I ended up paying $7.10.

The burgers were small but packed with flavor.

The burgers smelled strongly of onions and condiments the second I removed them from the bag.

The amount of toppings on each burger was generous.

The pickles were crunchy and flavorful. Though the burgers each had a bun sandwiched in the middle of the burger, it wasn't too bready — instead, it allowed the flavors to really come together while still being filling.

I was blown away by the cheeseburgers from White Castle, a result I admittedly wasn't expecting.

As the cheapest and smallest burgers, I was expecting them to be a little lackluster. However, I found that good things definitely come in small packages. The onions, condiments, and pickles were flavorful, but it was the beef that really impressed me.

The small-but-mighty burger was one of the most flavorful out of the ones I tried, easy to eat, and perfectly priced. 

My fourth-favorite double cheeseburger was from Five Guys.

Five Guys doesn't technically have a "double cheeseburger" — its regular cheeseburgers already come with two slices of cheese and two beef patties.

My burger cost $13.55, excluding taxes and fees, making it the most expensive burger I tried.

I was able to customize my toppings, but I ordered the burger with pickles, grilled onions, ketchup, and mustard.

Right away, I noticed that the toppings were generous. The pickle slices were large, and none of the toppings cost extra to add.

The burger was large without being too intimidating.

I thought it was a perfect size. It required two hands to pick up and eat, but it wasn't as heavy as the burger from Shake Shack. Slices of melted American cheese coated each burger, and there wasn't so much sauce that it dripped out from underneath the sesame-seed buns.

The burger patties were crispy on the outside but juicy on the inside.

I thought the pickle slices were thick, crunchy, and tart. I also really enjoyed the choice of a sesame-seed bun — it added a bit of texture to each and every bite.

The grilled onions also really impressed me. They were soft and almost caramelized, adding a lot of flavor that I didn't get from any other burger.

My third-favorite double cheeseburger came from Sonic Drive-In.

The SuperSonic double cheeseburger was the only burger I tried that came with lettuce and tomato. Since this was the default option, I decided to try it with these toppings rather than specifically remove them. 

The burger cost me $9.75, excluding taxes and fees.

The burger came with a hearty serving of shredded lettuce, tomatoes, two slices of cheese, diced onions, pickles, mayonnaise, and ketchup.

Unlike Sonic's quarter-pound double cheeseburger, which comes with two junior patties, the full-size burger has a combined half-pound of meat. 

The bun was perfectly soft but still held the sauce-covered burger together.

The ingredients tasted fresh and vibrant. The tomato wasn't too watery, the lettuce was crisp, and the burgers tasted well-seasoned and juicy. Plus, the burger was a very generous size. 

However, despite all these accolades, I thought the price was a little steep compared to what I got from Cook Out and In-N-Out.

My second-favorite double cheeseburger came from Cook Out, a regional chain I visited in South Carolina.

You can order a "big double" from Cook Out any way you wish, but I ordered mine with cheese, ketchup, mustard, onions, and pickles. It cost me $4.99, not including tax.

The burger came wrapped in foil and featured two juicy patties.

It also had thick slices of fresh onion and large pickle spears layered on top of the burger.

For the price, I thought the burger was out of this world.

The cheese slices were thick and tangy, and the burger was perfectly moist and medium-rare. It was also very large, and, after already eating dinner, I struggled to get through more than a few bites, though I kept wanting to go back for more.

At an amazingly low price, this burger definitely earned the second-to-top spot on my ranking.

In my opinion, the best double cheeseburger I tried was the famous Double-Double burger from In-N-Out.

It cost me $4.90, which I thought was an excellent deal for the large burger sitting in front of me. One of the first things I noticed was how thick the burger patties were — they were much thicker than other burgers I tried at a similar price point.

Most Double-Double burgers come with lettuce, tomato, onions, and spread.

To keep my burger similar to the other burgers I tried, I ordered it with onions, pickles, and spread, which I thought tasted similar to Thousand Island dressing.

The first thing I noticed about the In-N-Out burger was how juicy the burger patties were, followed by the incredible layers of cheese.

The cheese slices were perfectly melted and coated each part of the burger, something I couldn't say about any other burger I tried.

The bun was perfectly soft and held everything together perfectly, while the special spread had my mouth watering for another bite.

Of all the burgers I tried, I thought the In-N-Out double cheeseburger packed the most flavor for the best price.

When it came to a double cheeseburger, the West-Coast chain really nailed it. The burger was beyond flavorful, the perfect size, and, in my opinion, very good value for money.

The next time I'm in a state with an In-N-Out, I know where I'll be filling my burger craving.

• A submersible imploded as it descended to view the wreck of the Titanic last year.
• All five passengers on board the OceanGate vessel were killed in the incident.
• Two men are now planning a trip in a new submersible to try to prove the industry is safe.

An Ohio real-estate investor is planning to take a two-person submersible down to Titanic-level depths to prove that the journey can be carried out safely following the Titan sub implosion last year.

The investor, Larry Connor, told The Wall Street Journal: "I want to show people worldwide that while the ocean is extremely powerful, it can be wonderful and enjoyable and really kind of life-changing if you go about it the right way."

He is working with Patrick Lahey, the cofounder and CEO of submersible manufacturer Triton Submarines.

The pair aims to show that such an expedition can be carried out repeatedly and safely despite the implosion of the OceanGate sub last June, which killed all five people on board, including the company's CEO, Stockton Rush.

Lahey said that Connor rang him a few days after the implosion and said: "'You know, what we need to do is build a sub that can dive to [Titanic-level depths] repeatedly and safely and demonstrate to the world that you guys can do that, and that Titan was a contraption.'"

Connor, who has previously been to the Mariana Trench, the deepest oceanic trench on Earth, said they plan to do the journey in a two-person vessel called the Triton 4000/2 Abyssal Explorer, named "4000" for the depth in meters it can reach. He did not say when the trip will take place.

Lahey was one of the many industry figures who criticized OceanGate before and after the disaster, accusing it of questionable safety standards.

After the implosion, he described Rush's approach to convincing people to get on board as "quite predatory."

Others in the industry and the company also voiced their concerns.

A former chief submersible pilot for the company said years before the fatal incident that he was worried Rush would get himself and others killed in a "quest to boost his ego."

Filmmaker and Titanic explorer James Cameron also weighed in, saying he and some engineers had warned OceanGate officials that the Titan could lead to "catastrophic failure."

The waiver that Titan passengers were required to sign mentioned multiple ways that passengers could die and described the vessel as "experimental" three times.

Previous passengers had also described errors, failed trips, and feeling unsafe.

CBS News' David Pogue said his trip on the submersible was canceled after the Titan reached 37 feet due to an equipment malfunction, while one diver who made it to the wreckage said there were multiple aborted attempts, calling it a "suicide mission."

Nevertheless, Rush and his company repeatedly defended the submersible and its design.

The subsequent disaster raised concerns about the industry, with some experts calling on the industry to reassess taking people to such a remote location.

But Lahey said he believed that OceanGate's problems weren't reflective of the wider industry, saying that classed submersibles are considered to be very safe due to the extensive testing they undergo.

Rob McCallum — a former OceanGate consultant who had warned Rush about the safety of the Titan — agreed with that assessment.

"In that sense, OceanGate didn't make the industry look bad," McCallum told the Journal. "It made us look good."

• Virginia tech services firm Arthur Grand posted a job ad seeking only white, US-born candidates.
• The Justice Department found the ad violated the Immigration and Nationality Act.
• The company must now pay a $7,500 fine and implement training to comply with federal laws.

The US Department of Justice has fined a Virginia-based tech company $7,500 after it posted a discriminatory job listing in March 2023 seeking only white candidates.

The DOJ secured the agreements with Arthur Grand Technologies Inc., an information technology services firm, earlier this month. The company is also required to give its employees comprehensive training on the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The job ad said it was after "only US-born citizens [white] who are local within 60 miles from Dallas, TX."

The ad quickly spread on social media, drawing widespread criticism.

The Justice Department said that the advertisement deterred qualified individuals, including US citizens born outside the US and non-US citizens, from applying.

Investigations by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or OFCCP, found that a recruiter from the company's Indian subsidiary posted the job ad on Indeed.

Arthur Grand apologized and said that an employee added discriminatory language to the listing and published it without authorization.

"At Arthur Grand, we do not condone or engage in any type of discrimination based on race, color, or religion," the company said on LinkedIn.

It added: "We conducted an investigation and discovered that a new junior recruiter at our firm was responsible for the offending job posting. We have taken immediate action and terminated their employment for violating our policy."

The Justice Department determined that the ad violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by excluding eligible candidates based on citizenship status and national origin. 

The Department of Labor also found that the job posting breached Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment decisions based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.

Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division called the incident "shameful."

As part of its settlement with the Justice Department, Arthur Grand will pay the US Treasury a civil penalty of $7,500 and implement comprehensive training for its staff on INA compliance.

The settlement also requires the company to revise its employment policies, which will be subject to ongoing monitoring.

The agreement with the Labor Department requires that Arthur Grand compensate individuals who filed complaints with the OFCCP.

"We are committed to holding federal contractors accountable for outrageous discriminatory practices like this advertisement," said Acting Director Michele Hodge of the OFCCP, per the DOJ.

Racial bias still plays a part in job hiring in the US.

Last month, Business Insider reported on a study that showed CVs with Black-sounding names are less likely to get callbacks.

AI tools are increasingly being integrated into hiring processes and were initially touted as a means to reduce bias. But AI is not exempt from echoing human racial bias.

OpenAI's ChatGPT over-selected Asian women candidates and under-selected Black men in a recent experiment, Bloomberg reported.

OpenAI told Bloomberg that recruiters can add their own safeguards against bias, such as stripping names from the screening process.

Arthur Grand didn't immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

• The FBI is helping investigate stolen items from the British Museum, per the BBC.
• It's investigating if items from the museum were sold to US buyers, the report said.
• This includes items bought off eBay that may have come from the museum's collection.

The FBI is investigating the potential sale of hundreds of items stolen from the British Museum to American buyers, including some sold on eBay, the BBC reported.

The London museum is one of the biggest in the world. But since last year it has been the subject of unwanted worldwide attention after it said that over a thousand items from its collection, including jewelry, gems, and Greek pottery, had been stolen, were missing, or had been damaged.

The BBC reported that the FBI is now investigating whether items from the museum were sold to buyers in the US.

The FBI's efforts include contacting individuals who bought items on eBay, including a man in New Orleans who bought two gems on the platform, according to the BBC.

The man told the BBC that the FBI had reached out to him for more information. He said he no longer had the items and told the BBC he didn't think the authorities had located them yet.

The Telegraph reported last year that some items stolen from the museum were listed on eBay at low prices. Items worth around $63,000 were listed for as little as $50, it said.

In its report, the BBC said that the FBI had also likely assisted in recovering 268 items that were sold to a Washington DC collector on eBay, which the museum says belong to it.

Items may also have been sold to people in other countries, the BBC reported.

The British Museum didn't immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

The museum has accused one of its curators, Peter Higgs, of stealing and damaging artifacts.

Higgs was fired last year after an internal investigation, but has not been arrested or charged. He denies any involvement.

Three buyers said that an eBay seller with the username "sultan1966" used the names "Paul Higgins" or "Paul" when they communicated via email.

The buyer in New Orleans said he bought his items from sultan1966, which the BBC appeared to confirm by looking at records and receipts.

An antiquities expert reported suspicion that a museum staff member was stealing from secure vaults back in 2013, according to The Telegraph, with missing items beginning to turn up on eBay three years later.

Sources told the outlet that the museum had not properly cataloged all eight million items in its collection, which made it easier for the thefts to go undetected.

• Humans have long imagined life on Mars, though our understanding of the planet has changed a lot.
• Some of the US's earliest plans assumed humans could reach the Red Planet by the 1980s.
• Over the decades, technology and funding challenges have hampered the nation's hopes of crewed flights.

Earlier this month, NASA announced it was funding a revolutionary high-thrust rocket — called a Pulsed Plasma Rocket — that could make crewed missions to Mars in just two months.

That's seven months faster than it'd take with current technology and would drastically reduce the risk and cost of a crewed Mars mission, according to Howe Industries, which is developing the concept. It "holds the potential to revolutionize space exploration," NASA said in a statement.

The PPR is just one of the latest developments in the US's decades-long discussion to send humans to Mars. In the early '60s, for example, nuclear-bomb-powered spaceships were proposed for the trip.

Since well before NASA landed the first humans on the moon, the US has poured money and time into proposals for a crewed Mars mission, only to see its attempts never leave the ground. But technology isn't the only thing standing in the way. Politics also plays a big role.

"That's kind of like a joke within the space community or the Mars community," Matthew Shindell, a curator with the National Air and Space Museum, told Business Insider. "Putting humans on Mars is always 20 years away."

It's short enough to seem tangible, he said, but long enough that the political situation will change before it can be realized.

To fully understand why the US hasn't sent humans to Mars, despite sending more robots there than any other country, it just takes a trip down memory lane. Here's a history of the US's most promising crewed Martian missions that never were.

1950s: The Mars Project

In the '40s and '50s, no one really knew what they might find on Mars, but they knew getting there would be tricky. One of the first to seriously tackle the problem was Wernher von Braun.

During WWII, von Braun was a member of the Nazi party and created V-2 missiles. After the war, he continued his work on missiles with the US Army as part of Operation Paperclip while also working on a novel called "The Mars Project." In it, he laid out the first detailed plan to send humans to the Red Planet.

He envisioned a 260-day mission that would launch in 1985 with 10 spaceships and 70 crew members. "He sat down and did the math and created a whole story around it," Shindell said.

In the late '50s, von Braun consulted on NASA's very first 10-year plan, which included sending the first probes to Mars. (Sending humans to Mars would come later.) What started as fiction got closer to reality when von Braun started working at NASA a couple of years later.

1960s: Mars by 1965

In the late 1950s, Theodore Taylor, who worked on nuclear weapons at Los Alamos, and theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson embarked on an ambitious plan to build a nuclear-explosion-powered spaceship.

Called Project Orion, the resulting ship would take 12 years to develop, cost $100 million per year, and comfortably hold 150 people. Their motto was "Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970."

However, NASA was concerned about what would happen if any of the hundreds of bombs required to fuel the rocket exploded.

By 1963, the team was having trouble getting increased funding. That same year, the nuclear test-ban treaty was signed, hampering the team's ability to test its vehicle.

The project was canceled a year later.

1965: Mars's first close-up

Though NASA was feverishly working toward the moon in the '60s, it didn't fully abandon its plans for Mars.

In 1962, German rocket scientist Ernst Stuhlinger was working at NASA on a project to get five crewed ships to the Red Planet by the early 1980s.

Stuhlinger's planned ships were huge, almost 500 feet long. For comparison, NASA's Space Shuttles are under 200 feet. But as NASA raced to land the first humans on the moon, it shifted focus to smaller, lighter spacecraft. This helped speed things along toward the moon, but it was a step back for Mars.

This pivot "reduced Apollo's utility as a technological stepping stone to Mars," David S. F. Portree wrote in "Humans to Mars: Fifty Years of Mission Planning, 1950–2000."

In the meantime, NASA knew it needed more information about Mars before it landed humans there. So in 1964, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory launched the very first probe to fly by Mars: Mariner 4.

The images the probe transmitted to Earth were fuzzy and showed a desolate, barren planet. But they were the first close-up images of Mars's surface that anyone on Earth had seen.

1970s: The post-Apollo plans

NASA had just landed the first people on the moon in 1969 as part of its Apollo Program and was ready for the next big step. That same year, a Richard Nixon-appointed Space Task Group issued a report that supported human flights to Mars in 1982.

However, President Nixon ignored most of the 1969 report's suggestions in favor of what would become the Space Shuttle program, which didn't involve going to Mars. It was a turning point for NASA.

During the height of the Apollo era, NASA didn't have to compete for funding, Shindell said. Now, Nixon's administration started cutting its budget.

This was in the midst of the Vietnam War, and many Americans wanted the government to focus on poverty, the environment, and other domestic issues.

"If you're a proponent of human Mars exploration, this is the problem you've faced ever since the 1970s," Shindell said. Sending humans to the moon was already incredibly expensive, and it's a lot closer than Mars.

1980s: Sally Ride's report

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan appointed the National Commission on Space to envision the next 50 years of space travel, which involved the possibility of piloted vehicles to Mars.

But then NASA's Space Shuttle Challenger exploded. The disaster affected how the agency thought about human space travel as a whole.

"In general, there was a great deal of soul-searching within NASA about the use of expensive and risky human-rated launch vehicles like the shuttle," William Sheehan and Jim Bell wrote in "Discovering Mars: A History of Observation and Exploration of the Red Planet."

Just a year later, though, NASA's administrator tasked astronaut Sally Ride with laying out the agency's future space explorations. In her report, she explained what it would take for the US to land an astronaut on Mars by 2005.

To meet that timeline, NASA would need to triple its current budget in the next decade. That didn't happen.

1989: 20 years to Mars

By 1989, a crewed mission to Mars seemed back on the table, according to a speech by the newly elected President George H.W. Bush.

"Why Mars?" he asked. "Because it is humanity's destiny to strive, to seek, to find. And because it is America's destiny to lead."

NASA's response was the Space Exploration Initiative, an analysis of Bush's space exploration goals, which would cost an estimated $400-$500 billion.

At that point, Mars was still a long way off. The missions weren't expected to begin until after 2010.

However, according to Sheehan and Bell, a lack of Congressional funding and political support led to the demise of Bush's Martian mission a few years later in 1993.

1990s: "Better, faster, cheaper"

By the 1990s, Mars enthusiasts were dreaming of getting humans there by the end of the millennium. Aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin formed the Mars Society, an advocacy group pushing for the planet's exploration and eventually establishing a human settlement there.

Meanwhile, NASA was trying to figure out how to study Mars after losing contact with the robotic probe Mars Observer in 1993. With so much still unknown about the planet, uncrewed missions continued to be the focus.

The agency's new administrator Daniel Goldin was pursuing a new mantra for the robotic missions: "better, faster, cheaper."

This decade saw success with the uncrewed Pathfinder and Mars Global Surveyor missions. Pathfinder delivered Sojourner, the first operational Mars rover, while MGS sent back incredible images and data from the planet.

Just a couple of years later, though, NASA lost two more uncrewed spacecraft, the Mars Polar Lander and the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO).

2000s: But first, the moon

Despite the setbacks of the Polar Lander and MCO, NASA again had success in 2004 with rovers Spirit and Opportunity.

Though NASA had recently suffered another tragedy with the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and its crew in 2003, the agency's rovers seemed to reignite some of the desire for human missions to Mars.

In 2004, 15 years after his father's space speech, President George W. Bush announced what would become the Constellation Program. The ultimate goal was to put people on Mars, though there was no exact date given for this part of the plan.

A large part of Bush's vision involved returning to the moon before heading to the Red Planet. In 2010, President Barack Obama canceled Constellation but set a timeline of getting astronauts to Mars by the 2030s.

2010s: Mars goes commercial

In the 2010s, private space companies — like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic — started planning projects to get crews to Mars.

SpaceX founder Elon Musk said in 2016 that he would get people there in less than a decade. He later revised the date to 2029 with robust colonization by 2050.

Equally ambitious was Richard Branson's space company Virgin Galactic. In 2019, the company announced it planned to send an uncrewed spacecraft to Mars by 2022. But so far, neither SpaceX nor Virgin Galactic has sent anything to Mars.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump reversed the Obama administration's space exploration plans. NASA was again planning for a moon-first agenda.

Established in 2017 under the Trump Administration, NASA's Artemis Program is its latest and current mission for crewed deep space exploration. It aims to return humans to the moon and create a lunar space station where astronauts can live for weeks or months, at a time.

However, this moon-first agenda doesn't completely rule Mars out. Dayna Ise, who leads NASA's Mars Campaign Office, said it will actually help us get to the Red Planet.

"You learn a lot by going to the moon, but you learn even more by staying at the moon," she said. "And so whatever we learn there will help with Mars."

She also thinks private space companies have a role to play. "It's all hands on deck," she said. "It is such a difficult engineering problem that we cannot exclude anybody from helping."

2020s: Simulating life on Mars

The private space companies have been busy this decade. In 2024, SpaceX had its first mostly successful Starship launch after several fiery attempts. The mega-rocket will play a huge role in Musk's plans to colonize Mars.

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration has continued to support the Artemis lunar missions. There have been a few setbacks, though.

Citing safety and technical challenges, NASA recently pushed back its first crewed Artemis mission to the moon, which is now slated for 2025.

Artemis IV, NASA's mission to deliver part of a lunar space station to the moon, is still scheduled for 2028.

Having a long-term presence on the moon will help experts learn more about how crews can survive on a different world for longer than a few days, Ise said.

Meanwhile, the agency is also studying how people will fare in isolation. NASA's CHAPEA missions put volunteers in a simulated Mars habitat for a year. The "analog astronauts" follow strict schedules, have limited contact with loved ones, and are closely monitored. The first crew will emerge from the habitat this year on July 6.

2030s and beyond: Getting humans to Mars

Despite its moon-first agenda, NASA knows Mars has its own challenges that the lunar surface can't prepare them for. In addition to taking a lot of time and fuel to get there, the trip will mean communication delays of at least 20 minutes between the crew and Earth.

The travelers will need to be able to take care of their own health emergencies and fix hardware issues, Ise said. But NASA is also working on making some systems more autonomous. "If there is an issue, they don't have time to troubleshoot with someone on the ground to fix their life support system," she said. "So we need those life support systems to be smarter."

Other problems include keeping the crew safe from radiation, dealing with the planet's skin-irritating dust, and developing a food source. "We have to build an ecology inside a transit vehicle to keep everyone alive and healthy," Ise said.

All that will take time. NASA administrator Bill Nelson has said there's potential for the agency to send humans to Mars by 2040. Ise compared it to eating an entire elephant. "We're doing it one bite at a time and building on everything that we learn," she said.

It remains to be seen whether private US companies will reach Mars first.

• Saudi Arabia is reportedly planning a multi-billion-dollar sale of shares in its state oil company.
• The sale could take place as soon as next month, Reuters reported.
• The rumored share sale could provide extra funds for the Neom project.

Saudi Arabia looks set for a multibillion-dollar share sale in its state oil company, Saudi Aramco.

The sale, which could raise about $10 billion, may take place as soon as June and would mark one of the region's largest stock deals, Reuters reported, citing two people familiar with the matter.

The unnamed sources said planning was ongoing and details could change, the report added.

"Decisions about share sales are matters for our shareholders and are not something we are able to comment on," an Aramco spokesperson told Reuters.

The government of Saudi Arabia remains the largest shareholder in Aramco, which is the world's largest oil company by market cap.

Saudi Aramco did not immediately reply to a request for comment from Business Insider.

The news comes amid Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's Vision 2030 plan to diversify the kingdom's economy and pivot away from oil.

The plan has involved big spending on sports, entertainment, and infrastructure — largely financed by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund (PIF).

The kingdom has embarked on a number of "gigaprojects" as part of the 2030 plan, including its Neom megacity.

The project, which is expected to cost at least $500 billion — with some estimates putting the figure at $1.5 trillion — includes the much-talked-about "The Line," a futuristic city in the northwest of the country.

But recent reports suggest Saudi Arabia has been seeking to borrow funds for the project, while also scaling back population estimates for The Line.

The Saudi government had previously said it wanted to move 1.5 million residents into The Line by 2030, but that number is now likely to be fewer than 300,000, Bloomberg reported in April, citing an unnamed person familiar with the matter.

And while the city was set to stretch over 170 kilometers (roughly 105 miles) to the Red Sea, the Bloomberg report said that officials expected just 2.4 km (around 1.5 miles) of the project to be completed by 2030.

The PIF has also been hit with falling cash levels. In January, it said that its cash as of September had dropped to around $15 billion — the lowest level since December 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Saudi Arabia's finance minister said in April that while the kingdom was "very pleased" with the state of its Vision 2030 progress, "challenges" meant adjustments would be made to some aspects of the project.

• After 20 years of teaching in Texas schools, I am retiring early at 59.
• My pension will be less than half of my current salary, so I'm going to freelance to make ends meet.
• I'm also nervous about the free time I will have and the total lack of structure.

For the last 20 years, I've had the same two alarms set ever weekday — one at 5:15 a.m. and one at 9:17 a.m.

As a Texas high school teacher, the 5:15 alarm is really just a formality. After 20 years of early rising, I'm up before the sun with no prompting required. The 9:17 a.m. alarm is also deeply ingrained; it's the official attendance time when I'm required to pause my instruction and take attendance. It's Texas' official "time of record" by which schools are funded on daily attendance.

It's the schedule I've followed for two decades. But after this week, neither time will matter. I will walk away from teaching and into early retirement at 59, which makes me more than a little nervous.

My income will now be cut in half

I'm unnerved by several things. I'll be "living smaller" on less income. With my pension, my income will be less than half what it has been. My expenses will be lower but won't be cut by 50%.

I've been a remote adjunct instructor at a local community college for the past year, concurrent with my high school job, but the rules of my pension require me to sit out this Fall semester. It took me years of applying to secure that adjunct position. I worry that being forced to sit out the busiest semester of the academic calendar will push me to the back of the adjunct line once again. The pay isn't great, at about $50 per hour, but a few classes certainly can help close the gap in my income.

Since I won't be making nearly enough, I decided to accept a remote writing job, but it doesn't have benefits and won't have any structure or routine. While I'll be doing something I care deeply about, I will still be below the salary I earned this year.

I'm struggling to understand how I will fill my time

For 20 years, the more than 200 teachers in the building have been my daily interaction with adults. We lunch together, and I've shared the rollercoasters of their lives. They've been there to discuss and weigh in on my classroom dilemmas and personal predicaments. Where will the new voices of reason come from?

Wary of only my spouse for interaction, I have big plans. I've applied to join a committee for my community — one that meets monthly to review permits for home improvements, paint colors, and landscape design.

Two Mahjong sets have been growing dusty in my closet for decades. I've found a beginner's group that meets twice monthly that I have every intention of joining. I'm hopeful that Mahjong will keep the cobwebs from settling into the corners of my brain and give me a new group of peers.

Additionally, it's been easy to push off any amount of formal exercise with the "I don't have time" excuse. Now that I'll have the time in retirement, what will my new exercise regime look like? For 20 years, it's been steps in the school building that have been my only exercise. I've always known I need to stave off osteoporosis with weight resistance training, but now will be the time to pick up a dumbbell.

I'm not sure who I am without my job

Finally, for the last 20 years, I have proudly proclaimed that "I teach high school" to anyone who asks about my employment. What will the next answer be? I haven't found one that I'm comfortable with.

I'm not quite ready to say, "I'm retired." That phrase carries too many negative connotations for me. More than 30 years later, I finally understand why my former mother-in-law didn't embrace her new status as "grandmother" with any enthusiasm. Titles carry weight, and I'm not ready to shoulder "retiree."

• Young Gen Z adults are skipping college in favor of trade schools and tech training.
• In doing so, they avoid student loan debt and enter a fast track to steady employment.
• Skilled trades like electricians and plumbers are unlikely to be taken over by AI any time soon.

Despite a bad reputation for devaluing education and sneering at work, Gen Z might just be thinking outside the box.

Turns out, some young workers have no problem with getting their hands dirty — even really dirty — they just have no interest in a desk job or a 4-year degree to get there.

Trade school and technical training are where it's at these days. The National Student Clearinghouse reported that enrollment in vocational-focused community colleges rose about 16% last year — its highest level since the educational nonprofit began tracking the data in 2018.

From spring 2021 to 2022, mechanic and repair programs saw an increase in enrollment of 11.5%, the number of students in construction trade courses rose by 19.3%, and culinary programs saw a boost of 12.7%, according to the Clearinghouse. Two-year and four-year colleges saw enrollment declines of 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively, over the same time period.

Gen Z just doesn't see college as the only road to a well-paying, stable job anymore, according to a survey by New America, which found more than half of 12- to 27-year-old respondents saying they believe it's possible to find a steady career with just a high school diploma.

"These kids are looking for relevance. They want to be able to connect what they're learning with what happens next," Jean Eddy, president of American Student Assistance, a nonprofit dedicated to helping students navigate the educational system and workforce, told the nonprofit education outlet, The Hechinger Report. "I think many, many families and certainly the majority of young people today are questioning the return on investment for higher education."

Business Insider previously reported on a pre-med Gen Z student who found being an electrician is more satisfying than working in medicine and an 18-year-old in New Hampshire looking to work in the solar industry rather than attend a traditional four-year college.

"Unlike in an office job where you go to the same building daily, I work somewhere different every day. I experience different things and see different people every day," 27-year-old Lexis Czumak-Abreu told BI. "When a job is finished, I feel a sense of accomplishment and closure. I finish it and move on to another. It doesn't feel like one long job forever."

Elaina Farnsworth, cofounder of Skillfusion, an electric vehicle diagnostic technician credentialing program, told BI she has seen a significant increase in Gen Z and other young workers applying for her program and other trade credentialing programs over college.

And she thinks that's a good thing, both for the industry and for the young professionals themselves.

"I think there is more opportunity for — and upcoming workers have more of an appetite for — stackable credentials, or what we like to call microlearning tracks," Farnsworth said. "That includes things like Khan Academy, technical schools, and smaller, shorter bits of information that will equip them to do the work they love. That is the trend that we're seeing and it's much more fulfilling to them."

• A terse 2016 email from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has gone viral.
• He told his employees to just "figure out how to do" something, offering little help.
• Here are other infamous times workers might have felt the heat from a tech CEO's tense email.

Face it. We've all had a boss (or two) who scared us. It's a canon event, but it can still be an alarming one for those who have never dealt with it before.

Employees at Meta, for instance, may be feeling the scary boss angst as newly released emails from a terse Mark Zuckerberg went viral this week.

"You should figure out how to do this," the CEO wrote to a subordinate in 2016, according to documents released by a California court this week.

Yikes. Here are some other times executives in the tech sector probably gave their employees the chills over email.

Mark Zuckerberg

Let's start with another one from Zuckerberg. He's had a few.

In 2010, he sent employees an email with the subject line "please resign" after inaccurate information about Facebook's products was leaked to the press.

"I'm asking whoever leaked this to resign immediately," The New York Post reported. "If you believe that it's ever appropriate to leak internal information, you should leave. If you don't resign, we will almost certainly find out who you are anyway."

Elon Musk

Elon Musk is a little more straightforward.

As many execs tried to herd their employees back to the office after the COVID-19 pandemic, Musk gave his Tesla workers more direct return-to-office instructions.

"Anyone who wishes to do remote work must be in the office for a minimum (and I mean minimum) of 40 hours a week or depart Tesla. This is less than we ask of factory workers," Musk wrote in an email in 2022, according to CNN. "If you don't show up, we will assume you have resigned."

Jeff Bezos

When Amazon founder and executive chair Jeff Bezos was unhappy with his team, he let a single question mark express his emotions.

He employed the tactic when he got emails from upset customers, he said in 2018.

"I see most of those emails. I see them and I forward them to the executives in charge of the area with a question mark. It's shorthand [for], 'Can you look into this?' 'Why is this happening?'" Bezos said.

Tim Cook

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, has also taken a sharp tone with employees, leaked emails revealed in 2021.

Cook scolded his employees over email after the contents of an internal meeting leaked to the press, The Verge reported.

"As you know, we do not tolerate disclosures of confidential information," Cook wrote after the incident. "We know that the leakers constitute a small number of people. We also know that people who leak confidential information do not belong here."

Bob Iger

While perhaps not as scathing as others, Disney CEO Bob Iger has delivered brutal news to employees via email.

In early 2023, Iger announced to his staff via email that the company was eliminating 7,000 jobs, telling employees that they would be notified if they were being shown the door "over the next four days."

He added that additional layoffs of "several thousand more staff" would happen in the following months.

Rough.

Andy Jassy

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy gave strict instructions to his employees about returning to the office, putting them on notice that their job security was at stake.

"It's past the time to disagree and commit," he said in 2023. "And if you can't disagree and commit, I also understand that, but it's probably not going to work out for you at Amazon because we are going back to the office at least three days a week, and it's not right for all of our teammates to be in three days a week and for people to refuse to do so."

• Claire Brooks has been an employment partner at a law firm for nearly 20 years. 
• Brooks advises employers in everything from contract issues to complex dismissals. 
• She said employees should emphasise how a sabbatical can  benefit the business and be reasonable.

This is an as-told-to essay based on a transcribed conversation with Claire Brooks, an employment specialist solicitor at Araon and Partners in England. It has been edited for length and clarity.

A sabbatical is a break from work, usually for a defined time period. People might take career breaks to pursue other business interests, participate in a charitable initiative, have an extended holiday, or explore the world. Alternatively, they might have caring responsibilities. Ultimately, it could be for any reason — sometimes people want time out.

There are two main ways of doing it. The first is effectively ending your employment with the option to return. This has more advantages for an employer, who won't have the ongoing liability of an employee accruing length of service and retaining their employment rights — or paying a salary, holiday, and pension — while the employee is away.

The more common option, and the more useful for an employee, is where employment continues. This might be paid or a mixture of paid and unpaid leave. Usually, these kinds of sabbaticals are shorter – between three and six months. For a longer period of a year or more, a mutually agreed termination arrangement is more likely.

A career break has advantages for both employees and employers. It can help hardworking, long-standing staff avoid burnout, particularly where their work is very intense. For employers, it can be hugely beneficial for staff well-being and retention.

How to request a sabbatical

There is no legal entitlement to a sabbatical, but it's still reasonable to discuss one with your employer.

There is no rule about how long you need to have worked for an organization before requesting a sabbatical, but they are generally provided to more senior, long-standing staff.

Check whether your company has a sabbatical policy

If your company already has a sabbatical policy, you should follow it. It should explain the eligibility requirements and criteria for applying, the key arrangements, and the application process.

If there isn't a policy in place, employees should have an initial conversation with their line manager or HR to determine whether they would consider it. You might ask: "If you were open to considering a sabbatical, what would you want to see from me? Is there anything you'd like to see me demonstrating as part of that application?"

Prepare a business case

Prepare a business case for the career break to present to your employer. Your line manager is generally the best person to have this conversation with. Do this with as much notice as possible to give them the opportunity to think about it and decide whether it's something they can support.

Explain what you're looking to do, how long you'd like to take off, and your proposal. Reassure your employer that you're asking for leave for a reason they can support and that it's not for a purpose that might cause concern, like a conflicting business interest.

Show that you have thought about how you'll keep up to date with the role, how you'd like to engage with the organization while you're away, how your responsibilities could be covered, and how you see the return to the role afterward.

Highlight the advantages for the organization

It's useful to demonstrate your value — and your future value. Explain to your boss how the sabbatical can benefit them upon your return, especially if it's being funded.

The key to success is to demonstrate the potential advantages for the organization. Find out what's important to your employer and how your request meets their aims and priorities. Organizations usually have a written set of values — use those to frame your request.

Aim high

You can request a paid sabbatical in the first instance unless your company has a contrary policy or practice. If that is unacceptable to your employer, consider whether an unpaid sabbatical would work for you. If so, follow up with your employer.

Clearly, a paid sabbatical is more attractive to the employee, but the employer may be more willing to support an unpaid sabbatical, given the cost to the company.

Be willing to compromise

My best advice is to be realistic about what you're asking for and willing to compromise. Always think: What would I think if this request were presented to me? Putting yourself in their shoes will help you put together a more reasonable request: one which sets out the reason for the sabbatical, how it will help you and your employer in the long term and puts forward a sensible business case It might include requesting an appropriate length of time away, accepting a combination of paid and unpaid leave, or not receiving a bonus while you are on sabbatical.

You can still negotiate with your employer once you've applied for a sabbatical, and vice versa. Showing reasonableness and a willingness to negotiate will help to reach terms that will work for both parties.

What happens if your employer says yes?

We would always recommend that a sabbatical is set out in a very clear agreement in writing, usually drawn up by a solicitor. A properly drafted agreement avoids ambiguity and confusion. It should state how pay will work — including pay rises, bonuses, holiday and benefits — just like any other form of leave agreement. It should detail arrangements for the return to work: whether the employee will be entitled to return to their role and the circumstances under which they would be offered an alternative.

It will also need a termination provision explaining what notice the employee would be required to give if they didn't return to work and any clawback provisions — which might require the employee to repay any money or the value of any benefits they receive — in place.

It's important to ensure that the employees maintain contact and update their contact information while they are away, too.

And if it's a no?

Consider alternatives like flexible or part-time work. Since 6 April this year, any employee has the right to make a flexible working application from day one, regardless of how long they have been employed at their organization. If you want to go part-time or have a regular volunteering day, for any reason, you can make the request.

I think employers are increasingly open to flexibility, and I would advise them to consider employee requests with an open mind. If requests are taken seriously, employers can maintain trust in a much better way and ensure that employees feel valued moving forwards.

As told to Emma Magnus. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.