Again, the motion is governed by Kepler's 3 laws which are derived from Newton's laws. Size doesn't matter.

Dr Neal Hulkower thank you for your contribution to the discussion

Yes, a very large massive planet has lower orbital velocity than if it were small, and that velocity goes with an orbital motion around the center-of-mass of the system (a 'fixed' point in space). Notice that the bigger the radius of the orbit, the slower the speed is. The speed is inversely proportional to the square root of the orbit radius: for example, doubling the radius will decrease the speed by a ratio of √2 = 1.41. The size of a planet doesn't affect its orbital period. The orbital period is only dependent of the planet's distance from the sun. Mercury is the smallest planet and it also has the shortest orbital period. A planet's orbital speed changes, depending on how far it is from the Sun. The closer a planet is to the Sun, the stronger the Sun's gravitational pull on it, and the faster the planet moves. The farther it is from the Sun, the weaker the Sun's gravitational pull, and the slower it moves in its orbit. Assuming we are talking about the mass of the satellite (and not the mass of the body being orbited), mass does not affect the orbital speed. An accurate portrayal of the Solar System shows that the orbits of the planets are spaced further apart as distance from the Sun increases. For example, the orbits of Saturn and Neptune are further apart than the Earth and Venus. This observation was well known by the eighteenth century. As orbital radius (distance from the sun) increases, more material is available (in a uniform dust/gas disc) to accrete, so you get bigger planets further out; bigger planets sweep up more of their neighbors, so they tend to be spaced further apart. Distances between planets and stars do not expand as long as they are bound together by gravity sufficiently. This is true even at the scale of an entire Galaxy.