> the larger the mass the more stable the object Not really. Only when scaling mass, margin of error, and forgetting thrust/gravity. And even if you scaled ma

> the larger the mass the more stable the object Not really. Only when scaling mass, margin of error, and forgetting thrust/gravity. And even if you scaled mass, thrust, and margin of error proportionally, you'd still have an object exactly as stable as before (force X applied to the small object gives you the same acceleration as proportionally scaled force Xs applied to a larger object). Gravity accelerates all things the same, and so do proportionally stronger thrusters. But being off by one meter can destroy a small drone just as well as a large spacecraft, so you don't have the luxury of scaling your margin of error by significant amounts. The only reason larger objects appear more stable to humans is because we, and the environment[1], tend to apply relatively weaker forces to them, and also you don't tend to notice they're already moving at 5m/s because of their size. [1]Larger objects will better compensate for "truly random" forces, if their size causes them to encounter more of them, canceling them out and/or they're generally small.