Increase user-friendliness for new survey / instrument proposals. See also #30 for eBOSS specific.

Specsim is written to be flexible enough to consider new telescope / instrument proposals. While this is largely achieved, there are some teething problems after changes.

Baseline suggestion:
Most proposals under consideration are a tweak off DESI. PFS etc are not, due to the near-IR arm.
Consider including default near-IR that can be included / built upon.

Considerations:
-- For near-IR, need:
-- extended (dark) sky model. E.g. Sullivan and Simcoe.
-- extended moon model. E.g. Wehrli '85
-- extended atmospheric extinction. I have one for Mauna Kea.
-- All files need extensions to longer wavelengths, e.g. instrument throughput / resolution,
22AB source.
-- Well known observatory config files. E.g. NAOJ.

-- Specific problem that is hard to rectify:
L136-140 of camera.py after changing wavelength coverage in config and quickspectra.
Not clearly apparent what is desired - ccd_start? Should this be set by e.g. multiplex / petal
parameter.

-- Documentation on considerations when attempting to change instrument / telescope.

My use case:
-- PFS, hard but rough implementation ... near-IR arm etc.
-- DESI spectrographs on the Magellan (easy). Mostly 6.5m and a few tweaks. No changes to wavelength coverage.

See also #30 for eBOSS specific ticket.

Thanks @dkirkby!

Start by reading camera.py lines 136-140 and tracing how wavelength coverage is set in the config and quickspectra. Review the near-IR model and observatory configuration considerations in the issue, along with the documentation needs. Done is not defined: the proposal needs a focused scope and acceptance criteria before implementation can begin.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.