Caption: A not-to-scale diagram`of the Copernican heliocentric solar system (AKA the Copernican system or Copernican model) of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473--1543) from his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (1543).
Features:
The Sun is also labeled by the Sun symbol ☉.
The Moon's orbit is labeled just with the Moon symbol ☽.
Getting the right order and relative radii for the Solar System was a direct consquence of adopting the theory of heliocentrism and NOT the result of new data. Copernicus did have old data including measurements for the planetary configuration. How the right order and relative radii were obtained from the theory of heliocentrism and the old data is described for a special case in Procedure for Orbital Radius Determination for Inferior Planets and in general in General Procedure for Orbital Radius Determination.
Now the Ptolemaic system and other geocentric epicycle systems did NOT give a unique ordering or set of radii just in themselves.
By the standards of modern science, heliocentrism was a good theory even if it had turned out to be WRONG because it made predictions of important things (ordering and radii) which were, in principle, testable. The geocentric epicycle systems were less good by these standards even if they had somehow turned to be RIGHT---which they didn't. They were less complete theories.
For one thing---among many things---Copernicus still had the fixed stars pasted on celestial sphere of the stars (called Stellarum Fexarum Sphaera Immobilis in the schematic diagram) that bounded a finite spherical Solar System which to Copernicus was the whole physical cosmos.
The celestial sphere of the stars was a leftover from Aristotelian cosmology.
For another thing, the detailed Copernican system uses epicycle models and other ancient tricks (but NOT the equant) in order to make accurate predictions for ephemerides.
The celestial sphere of the stars and other relics from ancient Greek astronomy were dispensed with by the end of the 17th century.